1 Appeal No EQB

Transcription

1 BEFORE: THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA CHARLES KRUSHANSKY, PKC LANDFILL ) Appellant, 1 V. ) 1 Appeal No EQB DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER ) 1 AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, ) DEPARTMlENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1 PROTECTION, ) Appellee, 1 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL In accordance with 22B-1-7(0 of the West Virginia Code, a hearing concerning the matters set forth in the Notice of Appeal filed in Appeal No EQB was scheduled for June 2,2004. The Environmental Quality Board, on its own motion, then continued the evidentiary hearing in the appeai untii the Idy 22,2004, Board meeting. On July 6,2004, the Appellant filed a Motion for Continuance citing prior commitments and ongoing settlement negotiations which may resolve the issues of the appeal without the need for an evidentiary hearing. The Appellee did not object to the motion and on July 7,2004, the Board Chair granted the Appellant's Motion for Continuance. The hearing was then scheduled for the September 9,2004, Board meeting. On September 8,2004, the parties filed a Joint Motion for a Continuance stating that they had drafted a settlement agreement that was being circulated to all parties of the appeal for review, that there were ongoing discussions between the parties to address the issues giving rise to the Order of Revocation that is the subject of the appeal, and also an

2 effort to develop a long-term plan of correction and remediation. The parties further stated that additional time to continue discussions and further negotiation might result in the resolution of the issues of the appeal without the need for an evidentiary hearing. On September 8,2004, the Board Chair found that good cause existed and granted the Joint Motion for a Continuance. The evidentiary hearing in Appeal No EQB continued until the October 29,2004, Board meeting. Prior to the October 29,2004, evidentiary hearing, the Board's legal counsel resigned her position with the Board and the Board was faced with a budgetary shortfall which made conducting evidentiary hearings unfeasible. The evidentiary hearing in Appeal No EQB was then continued and rescheduled for January 14,2005. However, on January 13,2005, Counsel for the Appellant filed a Motion for Continuance citing a scheduling conflict which requires him to appear in Marion County Family Court on January 14,2005, beginning at 9:00 a.m. and extending through 5:00 p.m. Counsel further stated that until January 12,2005, he operating under the belief that the issues of the appeal had been resolved and that an Agreed Order was to be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board for entry, thereby negating the need for an evidentiary hearing. On January 14,2005, Counsel for the Appellee appeared before the Board and was prepared for hearing. However, after review of the Appellant's Motion for Continuance, the Board found that good cause existed and GRANTED the Appellant's Motion for a Continuance in the above captioned appeal. The evidentiary hearing in Appeal EQB was then scheduled for the February 10,2005, Board meeting.

3 On February 7,2005, the parties filed a Consent Order which resolves the issues of the appeal without the need for an evidentiary hearing and withdrew the appeal. During the February 10,2005, Board meeting, the Board members reviewed and approved the Consent Order submitted by the parties. The Board hereby DISMISSES Appeal No EQB. The appeal will be removed from the Board's docket of pending appeals. It is so ORDERED and ENTERED this 10" day of February, Environmental Quality Board

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melissa Carte, Clerk for the Environmental Quality Board, do hereby certify that I, on this 1 la day of February 2005, served the attached DISMISSAL ORDER to all parties in Appeal No EQB as follows: by Certified United States Mail, postage prepaid: William Brewer Brewer & Giggenbach 4th F1. Citizens Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 4206 Morgantown, W Certified Mail # (3) \ by Personal Service: Roland Huson Office of legal Services " Street, SE Charleston, WV Ken Ellison, Acting Director W Division of Water and Waste Management th Street, SE Charleston. W 25304

5 CONSENT ORDER,-. ISSUED UNDER THE AUTHORITY THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A WEST VIRGINJA CODE, CHAPTER 22, AR TO: Charles Krushansky DATE: February 3,200 PKC Landfill P.O. Box 223-W ORDER NO: SW-~O~O Weston, WV Tire and Rubber, Inc Greenbrier, Suite 180 Stafford, Texas This Consent Order is issued by the Director of the Division of Waste Management (hereinafter "Director"), under the authority of West Virginia Code, Chapter 22, Article 15, Section 1, et. seq. to PKC Landfill (hereinafter "PKC") a~d Tire and Rubber, hc (hereinafter "TRY). FINDINGS OF FACT In support of this Order, the Director hereby finds the following: 1. PKC owns and operates a Construction Demoiition Landfill (hereinafter "CD Landfill") and Waste Tire Monofill (hereinafter "Monofill") (hereinafter jointly referred to as "the Landfill") located near Grass Run, West Virginia in Lewis County. PKC was issued a Solid Waste Facilitjj?em-it XQ. SW-40241WV effective on August 3,1995 and reissued on February 15,2001 (hereinafter 'Yhe Permit"). 2. On December 13, 1999, an inspection of the landfill by WV Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter "WVDEP") personnel revealed several deficiencies including inadequate daily cover and improper compaction and placement. 3. On December 30,1999, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed several deficiencies including unsatisfactory daily cover and incomplete fire and vector control plans. A Warning was issued. 4. On May 15,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEPpersonnel revealed that the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded the bonding limit, a violation of the Permit. A Warning was issued. 5. On June 16,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEPpersonnel revealed several deficiencies, including but not limited to: fire control requirements were not achieved, the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits, the tire processing activity was not incorporated into the Permit and unauthorized placement of non-c/d

6 waste material in the C/D Landfill. Notice of Violation (hereinafter "NOV") Number NW was issued for violating the terms and conditions of the Pennit, specifically, storage of waste tires beyond the bonding limit of 10,000 whole waste tires. Remedial measures required the reduction of whole waste tires to the bonded limit and modification of the Permit to incorporate the tire processing area. 6. On July 13,2000 an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed several deficiencies, including but not limited to: fire control requirements were not achieved, unauthorized placement of non-c/d waste material in the C/D Landfill, and the exceedance of slope restrictions from the liner edge in the Monofill and C/D Landfill. On July 21,2000, NOV Number NW was issued for allowing the storage of waste tires beyond the bonding limit of whole waste tires. 7. On August 2,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that fire control requirements had improved, however, C/D waste material was placed outside of the disposal cell and the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits. Inspection of Violation (hereinafter "IOV") Number NW was issued to PKC for operating the tire process area without a permit. IOV Number NW was issued for storage of waste tires beyond the bonding limit of 10,000 whole waste tires. 8. On September 7,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits. IOV Number NW was issued. 9. On September 14,2000, PKC increased its bond to $60, On September 15,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel reveaied that the iancifiii liner edge was not cledy marked 2r.d the!iner benn wzs not a minimum of four (4) feet in height, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Sections 4.5.d.2.G and 4.5.d.23, respectfully. A Warning was issued. PKC states this has been corrected. 11. On September 22,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that a minimum of two (2) feet of freeboard was not maintained in the leachate holding lagoon, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.8.c.3.C. NOV Number NW was issued. 12. During the inspection on September 22,2000, it was also noted that the liner edge was not marked, a Iiner berm of four (4) feet had not been constructed, the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits, and the Iiner edge to waste was not maintained at a fifteen (15) foot horizontal distance. A Warning was issued for the liner deficiencies and IOV Number NW was issued for storage of waste tires beyond the bonding limit of 10,000 whole waste tires. PKC reports the liner edge has now been marked and the four foot (4') berm has now been constructed..

7 13. On October 6,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEPpersonnel revealed that the two-foot (2') freeboard in the leachate holding lagoon had been corrected. IOV Number W was issued. 14. On October 27,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed some progress was noted towards reducing the number of waste tires stored beyond the bonding limit. A Warning was issued to complete liner edge marking, to construct the liner berms, and achieve the fifteen-foot (15') distance between waste placement and landfill liner, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1. PKC states this has been corrected 15. On November 9,2000, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that baled tires were stored outside of the Monofill and were included in the total maximum authorized by bonding restrictions. IOV Number NW was issued. 16. During the inspection on November 9,2000, it was also noted that placement and compaction of waste tires within the Monofill was unsatisfactory, specifically, the tire bales were haphazardly placed. PKC states this has been corrected. 17. By letter dated December 1,2000, WVDEP advised PKC that the performance bond approved by the WV Attorney General's Office authorized the storage of no more than 20,000 whole waste tires, including baled tires. 18. On January 25,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits. Specifically, approximately 125,000 waste tires were stored beyond the maximum bonded limit of 20,000 whole waste tires. This included tire baies. 19. On Xarch 12,200!,2 meeting between PKC and WVDEP personnel was conducted at the landfill. An agreement and timeline to resolve outstanding deficiencies was mutually agreed upon as reflected by DEP correspondence dated March 30,2001. Corrective measures included the following: a. Complete placement of six (6) inches daily cover on C/D Landfill and reduce working face to one hundred (100) feet or less, on or before June 12,2001. b. This was abated on August 2, Submit corrective action plan to reduce outside slopes of the Monofill on or before April 12, To date, this requirement has not been certified. c. Submit corrective action plan to repair leak in leachate holding lagoon on or before April 12,2001. This plan was submitted but to date, the leak has not been corrected. d. Submit all unreported discharge monitoring reports on or before April 12, PKC reports this requirement was abated on June 27,2001.

8 Perform and submit results of priority pollutant sampling on or before May 12, PKC states these results were submitted on May 10,2002. Perform and submit results of acute toxicity sampling on or before May 12,2001. PKC reports this requirement was abated on June 27,2001. Remove all tire shreds and tire chunks stored outside of tire processing area and place within Monofill on or before September 30, PKC reports this requirement has now been abated. Remove metal recycling piles on or before April 12, PKC reports this requirement was abated on June 22,2001. Submit plan to address waste screening on or befme April 12,2001. PKC reports this requirement was abated on September 6,2001. Submit type and specification of flow measurement device proposed for outlet 001 on or before April 12, To date, an unauthorized flow monitoring device has been installed. PKC states that this information was submitted, but has been re-submitted on May 10,2002. Construct drainage area and barrier berm between highwall and active disposal cells upon completion of each lift. This requirement was abated on September 12, 2001 but has not been maintained. On May 10,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP versonnel revealed that the leachate holding lagoon continued to leak, the entire c/d Landfill was exposed and had no: been ccvered wit\ 2 ~izirr?arr? six (0) inches of daily cover, and records were not immediately available for review. NOV Number NW was issued for failure to maintain adequate records for immediate review, a violation of the terms and conditions of the Permit, Section I.A On June 27,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that several deadlines mutually agreed upon on March 12,2001 had not been completed, specifically, six inches daily cover had not been applied in the C/D Landfill, the working face in the CID Landfill had not been reduced to one hundred (100) feet by June 12,2001, the leachate lagoon liner had not been repaired, the priority pollutant report had not been submitted by May 12,2001 and the drainage area and barrier berm had not been completed upon completion of each Iift in the Monofill. 22. On August 2,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that several deadlines mutually agreed upon on March 12,2001 had not been completed, specifically, outside slopes of the MonofiII had been reduced but not certified, the leachate lagoon liner had not been repaired, the priority pollutant report had not been submitted by May 12,2001, the waste screening plan had not been approved, a flow measurement device had not

9 been installed, and the drainage area and barrier berm had not been completed upon completion of each lift in the Monofill. 23. On September 6,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the C/D working face width exceeded one hundred (100) feet, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, T~tle 33, Series 1, Section 4.6.b. 1.A. NOV Number NW was issued. 24. During the inspection on September 6,2001, it was also noted that the mutually agreed upon deadlines established on March 12,2001 had not been completed. Specifically, outside slopes of the Monofill had not been certified, the leachate lagoon liner had not been repaired, the priority pollutant report had not been submitted by May 12,2001, and a waste screening plan had not been approved. 25. On October 16,2001, a meeting between PKC and WVDEP personnel was conducted at the landfill. An agreement and timeline to resolve outstanding deficiencies was mutually agreed upon as reflected by DEP correspondence dated October 29,2001. Corrective measures included the following: a. Revegetate intermediate slopes and active areas within two (2) weeks. b. Submit a waste screening proposal within 10 days. This requirement was abated by submission of the waste screen proposal on October 29,2001 and approval of the proposal by DEP on November 13,2002. c. Increase bonding limit for additional waste tires stored outside of monofill within 30 days. d. Submit flow meter specifications within 10 days. PKC reports these specifications were submitted on May 10,2002. e. Cover all slopes with eighteen (18) inches intermediate cover within 90 days. f. Complete drainage layer between highwall and liner within 45 days. 26. On December 6,2001, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the number of waste tires exceeded bonding limits, fire control requirements were not achieved and the leachate lagoon continued to Ieak. 27. During the inspection on December 6,2001, it was noted that deadlines mutually agreed upon on March 12,2001 had not been completed, specifically, the leachate lagoon liner had not been satisfactorily repaired and a priority pollutant report had not been submitted. 28. During the inspection on December 6,2001, it was noted that deadlines mutually agreed upon on October 16,2001 had not been completed, specifically, additional bonding or reduction in waste tires had not been achieved.

10 29. On January 17,2002, an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that fire control requirements had not been achieved, CID material had not been properly placed and compacted, and the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits. A Warning was issued to submit the annual operational report on or before January 3 1, During the inspection on January 17,2002, it was noted that C/D waste was not placed in the designated working face area, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.6.b.l.A. NOV Number NW was issued. 31. On January 31,2002, a. inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits, a violation of the Permit. Specifically, over 200 bales, 15 trajlers and several storage piles were stored beyond the maximum limit of 20,000 tires. NOV Number NW was issued. 32. During the inspection on January 31,2002, it was noted that the fire lanes and fire breaks were not constructed correctly, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 5, Section 3.5.e.3. NOV Number NW was issued. 33. During the inspection on January 31,2002, it was noted that the slope restrictions in the Monofill exceeded 33%, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.6.b.l.A. NOV Number NW was issued. 34. During the inspection on January 31,2002, it was noted that deadlines mutually agreed upon on March 12,2001, had not been completed, specifically, the leachate lagoon liner had not been satisfactorily repaired and a priority pollutant report had not been submitted. 35. During the izspection on January 31,2002, it was noted that deadlines mutually agreed upon on October 16,2001 had not been completed, specifically, additional bonding or reduction in waste tires had not been achieved and a minimum of eighteen (18) inches intermediate cover had not been applied. 36. By letter dated March 4,2002, WVDEP advised PKC that its 2001 annual report was unacceptable and corrections were required. 37. On March 5,2002 an inspection of the landfill by WVDEP personnel revealed that the number of waste tires stored outside of the Monofill exceeded bonding limits, a violation of the Permit. Specifically, over 600 bales, 15 trailers and several storage piles were stored beyond the maximum limit of 20,000 tires. IOV Number NW was issued. 38. During the inspection on March 5,2002, it was noted that fire lanes and fire breaks were not constructed correctly, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 5, Section 3.5.e.3. NOV Number NW was issued.

11 39. During the inspection on March 5, 2002, it was noted that C/D waste was not placed in the designated working face area, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.6.b.l.A. 10V Number NW was issued. 40. During the inspection on March 5,2002, it was noted that the slope restrictions in the tire Monofill exceeded 33%, a violation of WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.6.b.l.A. IOV Number NW was issued. 41. As required by WV Legislative Rules, Title 33, Series 1, Section 4.12.b.l.A, PKC has failed to submit monthly tonnage reports to the WVDEP describing the type, amount, and source received at the facility for the year 2001 and PKC states these reports have now been submitted to the Office of Solid Waste. 42. PKC andtr1 have agreed that PKC will transfer operation of the Landfill to TRI and have requested DEP enter this Consent Order to help implement that transfer. ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE Now, therefore, in accordance with Chapter 22, Article 15, Section I, et seq. of the Code, it is hereby agreed upon between the parties and Ordered by the Director: 1. The Landfill shall not accept for disposal any additional waste tires, tire-derived materials, or construction and demolition debris until the corrective measures in Schedule A have been completed and DEP has given its written approval for full operation. If all of the work called for in Schedule A has been timely completed, DEP shall not unreasonably withhold its approval for full operation. 2. TP,' vti!! mak reasonable efforts to obtain title of the property upon which the Landfill is located and all necessary approvak and certifications as required by law ro own and operate the landfill, including the Certificate of Need from the Public Service Commission, the Solid Waste Facility Permit ("Permit") from DEP, and, if necessary, the Certificate of Site Approval from LewislGilmer Solid Waste Authority. Charles Krushansky will execute all necessary documents to effectuate the transfer of all necessary permits, certificates, assignments and approvals. 3. Within 15 days of the entry of this Consent Order, PKC and TRI shall submit to DEP an application to assign operation of the permit to TRI. Within 30 days of the entry of this Consent Order, PKC and TRI shall submit to DEP an application to transfer the permit and current bond to TRI. Charles Krushansky will execute all necessary documents to effectuate the transfer 4. Subject to the restrictions in paragraphs 1 and 6 of this section, TRI may perform necessary activities at the Landfill while the applications are pending. TRI, PKC, and PKC's president, Charles Krushansky, acting individually, consent and agree that upon approval of the assignment of operation to TRI, Chareles Krushansky relinquishes any and all operational control of the Landfill to TRI, and shall not be offered, shall not accept, and shall not hold a

12 management or supervisory position with TRI regarding the operation of the Landfill. TRI agrees to have an individual with successful experience in the operation of a solid waste landfill provide day-to-day supervision and management of the activities at the Landfill. 5. Within 15 days of the entry of this Consent Order, PKC and TRI shall initiate efforts to transfer the Certificate of Need and, if necessary, the Certificate of Site Approval from PKC to TRI. 6. The date TRI obtains title to the property and all of the aforementioned certifications and permits shall be referred to as the "Onset Date." The LandfiIl shall not accept any construction and demolition debris, waste tires, or tire derived material under any circumstances before this Onset Date and completion of all corrective measures listed in Schedule A. 7. Within 90 days of the Onset Date, TRI shall complete all corrective measures set forth in Schedule A. 8. Immediately after this Consent order is executed by the parties, TRI shall begin monitoring leachate, stormwater, and groundwater in accordance with the permit and applicable rules. After the Onset Date, TRI shall temporarily relocate outlet 001 to a ditch downstream of the leachate holding pond until the road slip is repaired. Once the repair is completed, the outlet may be returned to its current position 9. If strikes, Acts of God, or conditions beyond the control of TRI prevent TRI from completing any of the requirements of Schedule A within the 90 day period referenced in paragraph 7, then, with DEP's agreement, the 90-day completion deadline will be extended by a length of time equal to the length of time that the strike, Acts of God, or conditions or the effects thereof have delayed smpletion. If DEP refuses to agree to the extension of time sought by TRI, DEP shall issue an Order to Comply with the terms of this Consent Order. The Order to Comply shall be appealable to the Environmental Quality Board. Failure of TRI, without good cause, to timely order necessary and sufficient materials, supplies or equipment shall not be considered sufficient grounds for an extension. 10. The amount of bond for the Landfill is presently $60,000. Before the Landfill is allowed to reopen the amount of the bond shall be increased by an additional $80,000. Under no circumstances will DEP transfer the permit to TRI until TRI posts an additional $80,000 bond over and above the present $60,000 bond. 11. The parties to this Consent Order agree that at the end of both 3 months and 6 months after the Onset Date, they shall meet on-site to review compliance with the Consent Order and review the status of the Landfill. If a determination is made that TRI has com~lied with the provisions of this Consent Order, then the Consent Order may be terminated dr by agreement of the parties. 12. The parties to this Consent Order agree that at the end of both 3 months and 6 months after the Onset Date, if TRI has complied with the terms of this Consent Order, DEP 8

13 shall perform a bond review of the Landfill. If merited by a reduction of the number of unprocessed tires, DEP shall reduce the bond in accordance with the reduction of unprocessed tires. Under no circumstance shall the bond be reduced below the $60,000 presently posted. 13. The obligations of TRI under this Consent Order are contingent upon TRI obtaining title to the propetty upon which the landfill is located and all necessary approvals and certification as referenced in paragraph 2 herein. 14. If, despite its best efforts, TRI is unable to obtain title to the property or to accomplish transfer of the permits and certifications or if TRI fails to complete all actions in Schedule A within 180 days of the entry of this Consent Order, the permit shall be automatically revoked and the bond of $60,000 shall be forfeited to DEP. Unless TRI requests an extension of this 180 day period for good cause shown, PKC and TRI waive any appeal of such revocation and forfeiture. This 180 day period may be extended for good cause by agreement of the parties. If DEP refuses to agree to an extension of time sought by TRI, DEP shall issue such denial in the form of an final order which shall be appealable to the Environmental Quality Board. As referenced in paragraph 9 of this section, failure of TRI, without good cause, to timely order necessary and sufficient materials, supplies or equipment shall not be considered sufficient grounds for an extension. 15. The Director reserves the right to take further action if the compliance program described herein fails to adequately address the previously cited violations. However, during the life of this consent order, DEP agrees to withhold any additional enforcement actions against PKC for previously cited violations. Upon successful transfer of the operation of the Landfill, the title to the property and the operating permit to TRI, and upon TRI obtaining any other required certification, authority, or approval as stated in this Order, and upon TRI posting the additional bond of $80,000 referenced in parzgraph 10 of this section and completing all items fisted 92 Schedde A, DEP shall consider all previous consent orders, orders, and agreements with PKC satisfied and all issues with PKC as of the date of the Consent Order shaii be deemed resolved. However, nothing herein shall prevent DEP from considering any such consent orders, orders, agreements, and any underlying violations and history, should PKC landfill or Charles Krushansky individually, or though a corporation or some other legal entity, apply for a solid waste permit in the future. Should DEP determine that the terms of this agreement have not been met andlor the compliance program fails to adequately address the previously cited violations, DEP shall issue an Order to Comply with the terms of this Consent Order and the order shall be appealable to the Environmental Quality Board. 16. The Director reserves all rights and defenses which he may have pursuant to any legal authority as well as a right to raise, as a basis for supporting such legal authority or defenses, facts in addition to those enumerated in the Findings of Fact. 17. PKC, TRI, and Charles Krushansky in his individual capacity hereby waive their rights to appeal this Order under the provisions of Chapter 22, Article 15, Section 16 of the Code. PKC and TRI agree to undertake all actions required by the terms and conditions of this Order and consent to and will not contest the Director's jurisdiction regarding this Order. However, PKC and TRI do not admit to any factual and legal determination made by the Director in this

14 Order and reserve all rights and defenses available regarding liability and responsibility in any proceedings regarding this facility other than proceedings, either administrative or civil, to enforce this Order. 18. TRI agrees to undertake the actions assigned to it by this Order and consents to and will not contest the Director's jurisdiction regarding this Order. 19. The parties acknowledge that this Consent Order is intended to allow TRI to undertake the corrective measures referenced herein to bring the Landfill into compliance and operate the Landfill in compliance with the permit and environmental laws. Pursuant to the unique circumstances of this Consent Order, DEP agrees not to hold TRI liable for the violation of the common law or any of the laws or regulations within DEP's jurisdiction during the term of this consent order based only upon TRI's ownership of the property. 20. PKC hereby withdraws appeal 04-9-EQB pending before the Environmental Quality Board. Ken Ellison, Director Division of Water and Waste Management Charles Krushansky PKC Landfill f&& 5,syL, meamrer Tire and Rubber, Inc. Date Date

15 Schedule A 3 rdld intermediate cover I 2d 6 I Liner edge repair 2d Priority established on premise that all tasks will be completed prior to reauthorization to operate. * Assumption made that work will be conducted on site during late early spring of 2005 and mosquito control may not be necessary. Schedule adjustments incorporating late sping I summer / early fall will elevate priority. Tasks are prioritized to correct and control environmental deficiencies first, followed by correction of landfill design and engineering, and ending with operational requirements.