Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting
April 13, 2001

The Board of Directors of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority met on Friday, April 13, 2001 at 7:30 A.M. at the Authority office, 1299 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA.

ATTENDANCE

Board of Directors present were: Chairman Ebel, Clark, Hammel, Kassees, Snoke and Wood. Absent were Frost, Musser and Varljen. Staff present were: Warner, Forster, Garner, Lausch, Norris, Olson and Dougherty. Also present were: Solicitor George T. Brubaker, Hartman Underhill & Brubaker; Jim Klecko, Covanta Energy; Tom Murse, Lancaster New Era; David T. Fritz, Sr., Krista Weisser and Liz Truntz of Trout Ebersole & Groff LLP; and citizens as listed on the attached sign-in sheet.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

On motion by Kassees, second by Wood and unanimous vote, the Minutes of the February 16, 2001 meeting were approved.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Ebel opened the meeting for public comment.

Kevin Stewart, 720 Rohrer Road - Mr. Stewart asked whether the Board would consider opening up negotiations with the Barley family independent of any legal force.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that if Manor Township did rezone back to rural the Authority would have to approach in a public forum any request to again rezone for excavation. That would probably be in 15 years.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that people should refer to Resolution 2001-1, that was passed at the last meeting, and in the information packet distributed today.

Cabell Kladky, 109 Chestnut Grove Road - Mrs. Kladky indicated her disappointment that the Board chose to cancel the last Board meeting. She noted that the public had things that they wanted to talk about and she felt the Board had an obligation to meet with them. Secondly, in the minutes it is mentioned that Mr. Warner accused Mr. Kladky of accusing the Board of having a financial interest in this deal. Mrs. Kladky stated, for the record, that her husband never made any such accusation. Mr. Kladky merely asked the question whether the Board had any financial interest. Mrs. Kladky again asked for an answer to that question. Thirdly, last month it was asked if PALE could have, in writing, a retraction of the threat by the Board to PALE (individual members of PALE and their attorney) that LCSWMA is going to sue PALE. Mrs. Kladky further stated on December 29th the Authority said that if PALE did not withdraw their suit in five days the Authority would sue PALE. PALE has not yet been sued, but that threat was made in writing and Mrs. Kladky would like to have it retracted in writing. If LCSWMA is not going to retract the threat, she wanted to know why. Mrs. Kladky also asked for an answer from the individual members of the Board as to whether they would vote for authorizing their solicitor to sue; and if the Board is not going to authorize the solicitor she would like to know who the solicitor is working for.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that the Authority holds meetings when there is official business to bring before the Board. It is done in a public forum that is scheduled to meet the needs of Authority business.

Cabell Kladky - Mrs. Kladky stated that the public needs are not considered.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said, no, your needs are considered and we are hearing them today.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky added that today is Good Friday–a religious holiday.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that the Authority advertises meetings and the meetings are always held on the Friday before the third Tuesday of the month.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky added, except for last month.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, no, not except for last month but for about three years. That is the schedule of Authority Board meetings. Mr. Warner added that, as far as today being Good Friday, it probably gave more people an opportunity to attend the meeting. LCSWMA happens to be open for work today. A lot of people have off and due to the large attendance perhaps it was more convenient for people. This is a normal business day for us.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that all Board members and senior staff have on file annual financial interest statements. The reason offense was taken to those statements was because they were very accusatory. They were not questions. Mr. Warner said the accusation was in poor taste and he was responding accordingly.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said that Mr. Warner was making that determination and all that needed to be done was to answer the question.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that the answer to the question is, absolutely not. Mr. Warner asked Mr. Brubaker to answer Mrs. Kladky's last question.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky remarked that she would like Mr. Brubaker's response in the minutes.

Mr. Brubaker - Mr. Brubaker stated that his answer certainly will be in the minutes. The statement about bringing suit against PALE and counsel was made by his partner without authority of this Board and without the authority of Mr. Warner. There is no intention of this Authority or our office to take such action. For this Board to commit to what it might do in the future, depending on what you or any member of your group might do, would be inappropriate and this Board will not do so under these circumstances.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel added that he does not think any member of the Board would vote for a suit at this time. He agreed with counsel that this Authority does not know what could happen tomorrow.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky again stated that PALE has in writing a threat that the Authority is going to sue PALE and Mrs. Kladky, personally. Mrs. Kladky and other members of PALE would like to have that threat withdrawn in writing.

Mr. Brubaker - Mr. Brubaker responded that she did not have such a written document from this Board. She has a letter addressed to your counsel by his partner and he has adequately responded to the question about that letter.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky stated that in the letter it says this firm represents the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority.

Mr. Brubaker - Mr. Brubaker stated he did not intend to get into an argument about what he said and didn't say.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that the best that can be done at this point is to say what has been stated here today. It will be in the minutes and that is the written record of what went on here today.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel addressed the members of the public. If there are a lot of comments being made at once, they are not going to get in the minutes. We have to have one person speaking at a time in order to report them accurately with your name.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel told Mrs. Kladky that he appreciates her comments and that the best answer we can give at this time has been given. Mr. Ebel requested that the meeting move on.

Lucy Lacey, 1306 Hillcrest Road, Lancaster - Why can't a letter be written to legally withdraw the threat?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that Mr. Brubaker has already answered that.

Jim McElroy, 2445 Gamby Road, Washington Boro - Do you believe that landfill liners leak?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that he thinks that the technology we are using today is better than the technology we were using in the original Creswell and previous landfills. Mr. Ebel responded that he thinks they don't leak, but he would certainly not say that landfills never do.

Mr. Wood - Mr. Wood added that landfills now are double lined so if the first one leaks the second one will catch it.

Mr. McElroy - Mr. McElroy made a lengthy statement on information he got off the Internet regarding landfill liners and materials used to seal landfill liners. He also expressed concern with the landfill sitting next to the Susquehanna River, which obviously supplies a lot of drinking water to residents downstream, including Baltimore. vMr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that LCSWMA has to go with what the experts say. This Authority does its best to provide the highest level of environmental protection. There is no evidence that there is any release into the environment from the landfill. The only discharge from the site is from the Creswell Landfill, which is actually an old, unlined landfill where the leachate is treated and released into Mann's Run; this water meets drinking water standards.

Also, in the technology today, we actually put an impermeable cap on the landfill. The Authority has 21 acres where there is an impermeable cap-- no water leaks in. When we are done, no water will leak into the landfill, which means in a matter of time there will not be any leachate to come out the bottom. So there is a design to minimize infiltration into the landfill which certainly minimizes any kind of leak from the bottom.

Rhea Cosentino, 232 Oak Road, Conestoga - Is Cell 2 your only ash depository at the landfill presently planned?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, yes. Cell 2 is actually 50' lower than it was two years ago, and we are using the old ash along with the new ash each day for daily cover. This is a conservation move on our part to make the landfill last as long as possible.

Ms. Cosentino - Is the liner under that cell perfectly fine? Have you had any indication that there is any kind of secondary leachate coming from the new cell?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that he didn't know the answer because a request for specific data is being made. Those are the type of things that if you have a question we will research and respond to. You can ask for all types of data, but we don't necessarily have the information in front of us during a board meeting. Mr. Warner added that Ms. Cosentino has made requests and has some of the information already.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino noted that she has received some information.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked if monitoring well 26 is used to monitor the water quality from the ash cell? Why is well water in well 26 of the quality of dilute sea water? Is that typical of the well water in the area? She also asked if the background levels of materials (chloride, manganese, magnesium) was the same as before the wells were drilled?

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris responded that ash characteristics have been widely known for chloride.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that the data can speak for itself. You are asking for something very specific, and we would be happy to research it. Unless we know questions like that in advance, it is hard for us to sit here and give some kind of scientific specific data or observation on a question we are just hearing. We will research whatever you are after. He asked that a question be asked and we will try to give you the answers, but not here at this forum.

Allan Kreider, 141 Supervisor Road - Mr. Kreider questioned why the Authority totally disagrees with EPA standards and what EPA has said on the Internet? He also asked how many years does the manufacturer guarantee the liners not to leak?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated that we will see if we can get the answer. The State determines what the minimum standards are for a liner.

Mr. Kreider - Mr. Kreider added could you also check when you do the other checking, why EPA has made that statement, why DEP has never made that statement?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that he doesn't know what the statement says, noting that Mr. Kreider could have printed that statement out and given it to us for our information. It can say "eventually" – eventually could be 6,000 years. That is a very broad statement. If you could give it to us, it would be appreciated.

Mr. Kreider - Mr. Kreider asked if the Authority had any insurance in place in case the landfills would leak that you are protected from lawsuits, from people in Baltimore where they get their drinking water out of the Susquehanna River or the Chesapeake Bay? Is there any insurance that we have (that you have) or is this a case when you get a big lawsuit you do like usual, the company just goes bankrupt?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that Lancaster County has an advantage over a community that might host a private landfill. A private landfill typically gets development rights to a landfill, then fill it up in a 10 or 20 year period, and then that company is gone. There are numerous landfills where the local community, in conjunction with EPA or DEP, has had to come in and spend lots of money to fix up the area. In Lancaster County, we have a government branch that is always going to be here who is always going to have responsibility to the community for what is done as far as solid waste management and disposal.

As far as the specific insurance question, we maintain a self-insurance fund close to $6,000,000 in cash that is there anytime if we have any type of environmental problem. We have never had to use it for anything concerning the landfill. The Authority also has a closure and post-closure fund that is fully funded at $13,000,000 in cash, not stocks and bonds. This Authority put up its required $13,000,000 bond, so that whenever we stop operating we can start drawing on that money to properly maintain the closed landfill. The reason that it is there is, in case we would go away, that money is held in trust by the state so that the site is properly maintained for a period of 30 years after the last pound of trash goes in. These are the types of things that have been legislated in the last 10 to 15 years versus decades before. That is why landfilling is a lot more expensive today because we now have to set money aside to make sure that site is properly maintained. Our typical cost to build a landfill might be $400,000 an acre. That includes the liners, the leachate collection, everything. Years ago we found a depression in the earth and we said this looks good and somebody built a landfill. Today, society is spending millions of dollars to clean up those old sites when they used to charge 50 cents a cubic yard. Today, they might charge $40 a ton because you are paying for that environmental protection so that tomorrow you won't have a million-dollar superfund cleanup because you have engineered your environmental protection into the site, with the leachate collection and with the leachate treatment. It is a whole different ball game than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago when there were no regulations. People just dumped somewhere close-by where some farmer may have had a field, but today they are Superfund sites.

As far as the Susquehanna River issue, there is actually no discharge other than from Creswell Landfill into Mann's Run that goes into that river. We have given this information out to everyone. All the effluent data meets drinking water standards. Everybody is down a river from somebody. If you are concerned, and people seem to be very concerned about the drinking water for the residents in Baltimore, you can go up that river and find all sorts of industry like the City of Harrisburg or the City of Lancaster who are all dumping their treated effluent into that river by a magnitude of a thousand times any discharge from our landfill. The little trickle we put in after we treat effluent parameters will stack up against any POTW's out there discharging at millions of gallons a day. He said he just did not buy it, that there is a threat to the river just because we are next to the river. If our landfill was six miles up the Conestoga would that be any better? Does it matter if you are next to the river, as long as you are in the watershed? That's where you must have responsibility to manage your effluent and minimize any impact out of that facility, whether it is a factory or a landfill. Because you have responsibility to the environment and to the host watershed which is the Susquehanna, but it is the whole central Pennsylvania. The Frey Farm Landfill doesn't even have a discharge. It goes in the pipeline that goes down to the Lancaster Area Sewer Authority (LASA). They treat it with all the other wastewater– toilets being flushed, showers being taken, industry discharging all in a pipe system down through Blue Rock Road. Our 10,000 gallons is such a small amount when they are treating 4,000,000 gallons per day. So you can see our contribution, even to that system, is absolutely minimal, and that is because we continue to cap and we do not get the infiltration of leachate.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that, in a layman's view, the question you asked will the liner leak, it is not a relevant question. The relevant question is will the system leak. We are not talking about one liner. We are talking about two liners. You are not talking about two liners, you are talking about the other HDPE cap on top before the topsoil goes on which keeps the water from infiltrating. We are not talking about three liners, because you are really talking about the bentonite clay that we put underneath it all before we start. Mr. Ebel added that when he says that he would never guarantee that the landfill will never leak, he is saying that because you could have something like a massive earthquake that might split it right down the middle. Remember one of the DEP factors in siting a landfill is to go to places where we do not expect that to happen, not to say that it never can happen, but there is nothing in this world that you can ever guarantee will never happen.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that is why you are not allowed to have a landfill with any underlining limestone because it could fracture, not just during an earthquake.

Mr. Kreider - Mr. Kreider added that the things that he read with EPA say that all caps will leak and will let surface water in, that's all of them. That is a report put out in the last five years.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner asked if they were natural materials earthen caps, or were they a combination of earthen caps with synthetic material?

Mr. Kreider - Mr. Kreider said, again, they say all. The other thing is the leachate collection systems, do they clog? Is that true?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that he couldn't say that it has never clogged. Every so many years, we have a company that comes and they put little wires that has a TV video to check for clogs. There is absolutely no sediment build up in our pipes at all. One of the reasons for that is we have so little leachate. Now, can they ever clog at another landfill – he didn't know. He could only answer for how we designed and operate our landfill.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked is the highly mobile salt being released into well 26? Then can it be a matter of time before lesser mobile compounds start leaching from the landfill? What are your plans for remediation if a problem ever occurs?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that would be based on the nature and extent of the problem. We don't have a problem out there.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked if there are defined heavy metals or VOC's in unexpected concentrations in the monitoring wells and what are the plans to remediate, if any?

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris responded that the regulations require ongoing continual monitoring. The regulations require, and he believes the verbage in the regulations says, that if there is a problem, there is an assessment and abatement procedure which is completely outlined. They don't tell you specifically what you have to do because it is site and compound dependent. There are so many variables. Again, these assessment and abatement procedures are in the regulations.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked if the assessment and abatement procedure is mandated by the Department of Environmental Protection.

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris replied, yes.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked so you essentially bring in outside people to look at the situation and then they tell you how to remediate?

Mr. Norris - Mr. Norris responded that we have never undergone such a situation, so again he cold not respond to how other people have dealt with it or whether or not a problem has occurred. Within our organization and our landfill we have never had to ask, "what now"? So he does not know how to address that.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino asked, you never had to ask "what now" with the hazardous site cleanup on file with the PADEP at the Creswell Landfill? She stated that you have had to answer some of those questions. There is specific file with the DEP that deals with the Hazardous Waste Cleanup Act. Did outside people from DEP come in and assess the situation and tell you how to remediate it?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that he didn't know. You are going back to 1985 and earlier and he does not know exactly what happened there. Certainly it predates him.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino responded that, yes it predates her also.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that he knows that it is not a great answer, but again without advance notice, he doesn't know.

Ms. Cosentino - Ms. Cosentino stated, it is important in a business to have contingency plans.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that, we do have contingency plans for all our facilities.

Mary Glazier, 269 Chesnut Grove Road - Mrs. Glazier stated that on March 16th she got a letter from the Solid Waste Authority, signed by Jim Warner, which included a resolution that was signed by Mr. Ebel. She asked whether the Board, chaired by Mr. Ebel, is setting the rules or whether Mr. Warner is. This letter says, records indicate that you own land within close proximity to land which the Authority has secured a Purchase Option. This letter is intended to assure you that the Authority pledges to buy your property at 100% of appraised value at any time in the future should you ever decide to sell your property. It references this resolution. On page 6 of the resolution in paragraph 3 it says the offer described in paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 above may be withdrawn by LCSWMA at any time. She thought she can wait as long as she wants to make up her mind about whether she wants to sell her property, to see if there is interest, or perhaps she should be thinking maybe she should be striking while the iron is hot

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded let me answer that - it is a great question, Mary.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier asked Mr. Warner, if he is in charge or is the Board in charge?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded the Board is in charge and his job is to carry out the policies made by the Board. Any offer he extends is always subject to the policy of the Board. What that resolution says is that going forward, until decided otherwise, that is the offer. Maybe he should have said subject to verbage in Resolution 2001-1 and not said anytime. As far as right now, the policy of the Authority is that Resolution 2001-1 is what guides the position of the Authority. That is the offer until deemed different to whatever extent by the Board.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier asked Mr. Ebel, would you agree that at any time the resolution prevails?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that he would agree.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier asked who decided that the Glaziers should be included in the 32 properties?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that the Board made the decision. Staff presented the Board with a list of properties shown on a map and it was decided to put them in the Resolution.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier asked what criteria was used that said the Glaziers are on this list. Was it basically those property owners who might feel they were adversely affected by the expansion?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that this has been explained several times, and he will do it again. What we did was look at frontage. People who had property frontage on River Road from the fork straight onto Chesnut Grove Road down to the Barley property. Anyone who had any property boundaries either on Chestnut Grove Road, or contiguous as you, are contiguous to that property and that is why we included you.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier said there are other properties on River Road after the split, that are contiguous to the Barley property that are not included in this.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said he understands that.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier said they could argue that they are more adversely affected.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, that he had spoken to four or five of those people. He added they are the ones who should comment unless you are doing so on their behalf.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier said she is asking questions to know the criteria.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said, he was explaining.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier said, you are explaining that you are a public body and she is a public citizen and she has a question on a letter she got.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that he just explained what the criteria was. If he would be allowed to finish, then he would answer the question. The reason that we did not include them is because they abutted the 60 acre property that was never zoned in the excavation and has never been engineered to be included in future plans to be in any landfill configuration of the Authority. There is a 60 acre buffer there.

Mrs. Glazier - Mrs. Glazier stated that she had a comment about the dates and meeting times. The Board used to meet at 4:00 in the afternoon. It met every month. She has read all the minutes of the Authority up through 1986 and she has read many of the minutes since 1997 and the minutes of the early years with the Authority were much more revealing about the discussions and the deliberations of the issues before the Board. She thinks that a 7:30 a.m. meeting and meeting 7 or 8 months out of the year is just appalling. To meet on Good Friday, a significant religious holiday. We are here, but it is not where she would choose to be most Friday mornings. She strongly urges the Board to return to a meeting time that is friendly to the public. She said she knows when the meeting times changed, but she doesn't know why because you didn't explain that in the minutes. She urged the Board, for your own benefit, to avoid the appearance of trying to keep the public out, to meet at a time when the public can be here. She wants it to be put on record that she is really offended that the meeting was canceled in March to hold a meeting on a very sacred religious holiday.

Steve Martin, 526 Indian Run Road - Mr. Martin asked if the Authority was planning on expanding the incinerator.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that there has been no discussion during his tenure on the Board about expanding the size of the incinerator with the possible exception of adding one more boiler to the existing building. We have said we could do that some time and that has been in our presentations to the Manor Township Planning Commission in response to some of their questions. We would be glad to share that with you, but at this time we have no immediate plans to add that boiler.

Mr. Kreider - Mr. Kreider asked if there has been any discussion or plans to bring out-of-state trash to the incinerator?

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that the Authority currently brings in residual waste; that is to say, it is not municipal trash in the sense that it is the stuff that you throw in your garbage can. Residual waste may be bad batches of pharmaceuticals or aspirin or something of that nature. Our need for that may be diminishing as the size of the County grows over the years. We are trying to use that and keep our boilers operating and maintain a full generation of electricity.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that activity has been a matter of public record and in the newspapers since 1995.

John May, 100 Millersville Pike - Mr. May made a lengthy statement requesting the Board, rather than continue to purchase property and spend money, he urged the Board to just stop. Pause. Wait and see what happens. The landfill expansion isn't needed for 15 years.

Bill Saylor, 310 North George Street, Millersville - Mr. Saylor said he has attended a number of Authority meetings and has tried to keep track of what has been said. Mr. Warner has said nothing from the landfill goes into the Susquehanna and then a few minutes later he said that comparing Lancaster and Harrisburg it is only a trickle.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that he has already stated today that there are two landfills, Creswell Landfill and the Frey Farm Landfill. Each landfill has a separate, independent leachate collection treatment program. Creswell Landfill leachate, after treatment, runs in to a little creek called Mann's Run. Mann's Run eventually flows off our property line and into the river. The water leaving our property meets drinking water standards. That is the only direct discharge of leachate off our site into the river. Frey Farm leachate is collected and goes in a pipeline to LASA.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that the Board has been taking public comment for approximately one hour and would like to receive just two more comments.

Donna Bare, Chestnut Grove Road - Mrs. Bare stated that in the beginning of March, there was a tiny strip in the legal news about recycling. Mrs. Bare stated that if the Authority can afford to pay Kelly Michener $32,000 for the month of December for advertising and public relations, you can afford to take out a bigger ad to let people know about where recycling can be turned in.

Mrs. Bare went on to read a lengthy statement giving the Board background on her home and family viewpoint on the proposed landfill expansion.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said the advertisement is a legal requirement of Act 101 of 1988. The Act requires the Authority every six months to place a legal classified advertisement regarding the availability of recycling drop-off facilities next to our facilities. Mr. Warner added that the Authority just got recognized by the State with a Waste Watcher Award specifically for our drop-off programs.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel added that our primary thrust to encourage recycling is working with municipal officials through their township newsletters and things of that sort.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel stated that the public comment portion of the meeting will stop. He noted Barbara May had her hand up and unless she wants to defer to Cabell Kladky, she may go ahead.

Barbara May, 100 Red Fox Road - Mrs. May had a question about the Zoning Hearing Board decision of 1986 with the 16 conditions. One of the conditions was that no out-of-state trash go in the landfill. Another one is the host fee to Manor Township. The last one said the landfill would not expand was not important. It is puzzling to figure out how it was decided which of those conditions were important.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel responded that this has all been said before and gave a summary.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner added that we know what the 16 conditions are. We made a decision with regard to the 16 conditions. These conditions were imposed on the Authority back in 1986 and we did not appeal that decision. It was also a long, drawn out battle and we desperately needed the landfill space. We didn't have 20 years notice. Manor Township may have put that on because the only thing they had seen as a landfill to that date was the old Creswell operation, which didn't have a liner. There were probably lots of birds, there may have had some blowing litter and stuff like that. At that time, they imposed that condition as a matter of approval. In the 15 years since then, the operation is not anything like that. We don't put our raw garbage in there. We don't have any birds down there. We now collect the leachate. We don't have any discharge from the FFLF. We don't have any blowing litter. We are hardly making any methane gas.

We know we are going to need approval to change that condition. We have abided by all those conditions. We have not expanded. Yes, we think that is the place to go. This organization has to do what it is right for 475,000 people.

We have to wait until five years before we finish filling the Frey Farm Landfill before we can go to DEP to apply for a permit and before we can go to the Manor Township Zoning Hearing Board to apply for a waiver. So we have 15 years to wait.

This is a prudent investment to take care of an environmental need in this County. Lancaster County is probably going to have close to 700,000 people in 20 years. Do you know how much trash that is, despite whatever recycling efforts go on? This County has such a vibrant future, and it produces lots of trash, and we are the agency that is stuck to deal with it.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said, Barbara is still standing. Mr. Ebel said a few minutes ago, in fact it is almost 15 minutes ago, we were ending the comment period. Do you have something new to add?

Mrs. May - Mrs. May said, she did.

Mr. Ebel - Mr Ebel stated that this will be the last comment from the public.

Mrs. May deferred to Mrs. Kladky.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky stated that there are still a number of questions that we have asked that have not been answered. The key question is one of trust. She wanted to commend Mr. Warner. He showed a lot of courage in the last couple of months. However, courage without wisdom is foolhardy. It is time for this Board to show not only courage but wisdom. We all realized a long time ago that we do not have enough money. We are going to run out of money a long time before you do. Part of good planning is stopping and saying it is not worth it and looking for alternatives. To just continue on because you believed last November that this was the right thing to do is becoming clearer and clearer that it is not.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - Warner reported on the following:

• Operating Results - Revenue and expenses continue to trend very close to budget as in previous months this year. The surplus was $72,028.
  
  
• Proposed Solid Waste Legislation - The Solid Waste Host Municipality and Transportation Safety Act deals with two primary issues: host agreements and truck safety. If the Act is passed, it will require the Authority to "update" Manor Township and Conoy Township within five years from when the Act is passed. This legislation is aimed at forcing many private facilities to negotiate Host Agreements with the municipality where they are located. It also ties the Host Agreements into the permitting process, and allows DEP to enforce provisions of the Host Agreements along with the municipality. The trucking simply requires a $25.00 per trailer permit from the state. It also gives the state more enforcement over many interstate and intrastate truckers that may be running poorly- maintained vehicles.
  
  
• Citizens Advisory Committee - The Citizens Advisory Committee met on April 11, 2001. The Committee was brought up to date on the fluorescent lamp recycling program. The Committee will be meeting in May with a national recycling representative from Waste Management Inc., who has offered to do a Pilot Computer Recycling Program with the Authority.

  Mike Bare - Mr. Bare asked why the Authority is limiting the number of spent bulbs to 30 per month.

  Mr. Forster - Mr. Forster responded that the generator of more than 30 bulbs per month should be taking their bulbs directly to Earth Protection Services, Inc. located in Lancaster. The Authority will be taking up to 30 spent bulbs per month from homeowners and small generators at no cost.

  The Committee also was given an update on the Landfill Expansion Issue. The CAC requested that Mr. Warner read the following statement to the Board: the CAC commends the staff for their effort and reiterates their continued support of the Authority. The CAC also stated that the Authority is moving in the right direction and should "stay the course".
  
  

• Approval of Rights to Easements - On motion by Hammel, second by Wood and unanimous vote, the Board approved the Executive Director entering into consultation with the Authority's solicitor, to take whatever actions are necessary to negotiate the conveyance of Authority rights to the parcel of land (parcel number 7, approximately 1/4 acre) for the purpose of acquisition by Ms. Linda Shaffer.
  
  
• Resolution No. 2001-2 - On motion by Clark, second by Snoke and unanimous vote, the Board authorized the Executive Director and Solicitor to take all actions which are necessary or appropriate to acquire the Stearl E. Kaylor and Ruth M. Bixler properties either by condemnation or by purchase, in lieu of condemnation, for the sum of $122,000, and all such actions previously taken by the same in connection with such acquisition are hereby ratified and approved.
  
  
• Resolution No. 2001-3 - On motion by Hammel, second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Board authorized the Executive Director and Solicitor to take all actions which are necessary or appropriate to acquire the Amos L. Schopf property, either by condemnation or by purchase, in lieu of condemnation, for the sum of $103,300, and all such actions previously taken by the same in connection with such acquisition are hereby ratified and approved.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT - Olson reported on the following:

• LCSWMA Preliminary Results Actual vs. Budget - All Programs for the Month ended March 31, 2001.
  
  
• LCSWMA Accounts Receivable Report and Past Due Detail Analysis as of March 31, 2001.
  
  
• Approval of Disbursements - On motion by Wood, second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Summary of Disbursements for February 2001 in the total amount of $3,198,199 and March 2001 in the amount of $4,173,528 were unanimously approved.
  
  
• Auditor's Report - Krista Weisser, Trout Ebersole & Groff, LLP presented the audited LCSWMA Financial Statement Years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999. The Management Letter was also reviewed. After discussion and motion by Kassees, second by Clark and unanimous vote, the Board accepted the audited financial statement as presented.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Lausch reported on the following:

• Waste Stream Management - The Summary Tonnage Report - Actual Results vs. Budget for the Month Ended March 31, 2001 was reviewed. Total revenue tons received for processing and/or disposal at Authority facilities in March were 31,818 tons.
  
  
• Solid Residual Waste - Waste Services Agreements with F L Smidth and Miller Buildings Systems were renewed.
  
  
• Liquid Residual Waste - The LTP received 618,403 gallons of Liquid Residual Waste in March. Revenue for the month was $37,772, which is short of budget by $719. Year–to-date revenue for the plant is still ahead of budget by almost $18,000.
  
  
• Property Appraisals - Because it has been ten years since the completion of most of the construction/renovation projects, it would be prudent at this time to have a full appraisal of all Authority properties to ensure that values are correctly stated for insurance purposes. After discussion and on motion by Snoke, second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Board approved engaging Industrial Appraisal Company to perform an appraisal of the Authority's facilities for insurance valuation purposes at a cost of $12,170. The appraisal is to be completed by June 30, 2001 for use with the September insurance renewals.
  
  
• Employee Healthcare Plan - On motion by Clark, second by Wood and unanimous vote, the Board approved changing the LCSWMA Employee Healthcare Plan, effective July 1, 2001 from the present self-funded Preferred Provider Organization plan to an insured Point of Service plan through HealthGuard. Staff is authorized to enter into necessary agreements and take all appropriate action to have the new plan start July 1, 2001.
  
  
• Resolution No. 2001-4 - On motion by Wood, second by Kassees and unanimous approval, the Board approved the Appointment of Barbara B. Hammel to the Board of Directors of the Government Self-Insurance Fund for the term expiring December 31, 2001.

OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT - Garner reported on the following:

• Administrative - Troy Gerlach has assumed the position of Transfer Station Assistant Manager, and Bill Trovinger has been promoted to fill the Resource Recovery Facility Assistant Manager position. Also a new Ash Truck Driver was hired.
  
  
• Household Hazardous Waste Facility - The facility received material from 217 residents in March, which is slightly above the historical monthly average of 200. This brings the first quarter total to 550, which is 10% above the 499 customers served in the first quarter of 2000.
  
  
• Purchase of a New Hydraulic Excavator and Sale of Used Caterpillar 350L Hydraulic Excavator - On motion by Clark, second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Board awarded the contract for the purchase of a new hydraulic excavator to Cleveland Brothers Equipment Company for the bid price of $321,300. It is further approved that the sale of the used Caterpillar 350L hydraulic excavator be awarded to Cleveland Brothers Equipment Company for the bid price of $80,000.
  
  
• Rental Equipment Bid - On motion by Snoke, second by Hammel and unanimous vote, the Board accepted the rental equipment bids as submitted for the period April 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002, and authorized staff to rent equipment on an as-needed basis from the lowest bidder with equipment available at the time of the rental.
  
  
• Lubricants Bid - On motion by Wood, second by Hammel and unanimous vote, the Board approved the award of the contract for lubricants to PPC Lubricants, Inc. for the period May 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002
  
  
• Award Contract for the Purchase of an Aluminum Body Dump Truck - On motion by Wood, second by Kassees and unanimous vote, the Board approved the award of the contract for the purchase of an aluminum body dump truck and trade-in of a used truck to Henry Martin & Sons for the total contract price of $82,000.

RRF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT - Forster reported on the following:

• Site Operations - Electric revenues for March were $934,465, or $15,535 below budget, due to unscheduled boiler downtime. Annual electric revenues are currently projected to be around 4% ahead of budget by year's end.

The following major tasks were completed on Unit #2 during the spring outages: replacement of a portion of the secondary superheater tubing; relining of the feed hopper and feed chute; replacement and change-out of grate bars; welding of Inconel onto thinned furnace tubes; repair and replacement of refractory material and overfire air nozzles; and ultrasonic testing of the stack flue and scrubber vessel. All work was completed as scheduled and the unit returned to service on March 30.

Unit #3 was the only boiler to experience unscheduled downtime in March. The unit was taken out-of-service for 12 hours on March 3rd to replace five grate bars, and again on March 11th when a tube on the west wall of the furnace failed. Repairs required approximately 51 hours to complete, and the unit came back up on March 13th.

A total of 30,867 tons of waste was delivered to the facility in March.



• Regulatory Activities - Randy Weiss visited the site on March 6th for a routine inspection. His report had no operational violations.

A meeting was held with Tim Breneisen, LCSWMA'S Recycling Manager, and John Lundsted, PADEP's Municipal Waste Planning & Recycling Coordinator, to discuss the Authority's application for a Resource Recovery Development Act 198 Grant for the installation of a non-ferrous metal recovery system at the RRF. PADEP has approximately $450,000 allotted for these grants, and will fund up to 75% of an eligible project's cost. The Authority hopes to recycle approximately 400 tons of non-ferrous metal per year once the proposed system becomes operational, and recover project costs within three years.



• Other Activities - A meeting was held with CDM to discuss the scheduled upgrade of Elizabethtown Borough's wastewater treatment plant. This plant supplies the RRF with 100% of its processed water needs. The Borough will be increasing capacity of the plant by 50% in a project that is expected to run from May 2001 through October 2002. There may be a few periods when water flow to the facility will be interrupted, but the project's impact on RRF operations is expected to be very minimal.

The Authority's fluorescent bulb recycling program, which will be known as the "Lights Out Program", will be featured in an article in the Lancaster Newspapers sometime in mid-April.

Ogden Corporation officially changed its name to Covanta Energy Corporation on March 14, 2001. Within Covanta circles, the RRF is now known as Covanta Lancaster.

TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Norris reported on the following:

• Capital Project Administration - Site visits were completed of each of the LCSWMA facilities requiring radioactivity monitoring "Action Plans" with ARM Group and their Certified Health Physicists. This process will be on-going and include several response periods so the actual monitoring of waste delivery vehicles won't be until some time in 2002.

The Phase 2 Capping project continues to move forward. We received 13 responses to the RFQ from the 18 contractors who received the bid documents. Each of the responses have been reviewed by both ARM and staff and no concerns have been identified. Bids will be due June 5th.

In accordance with the recommendation received from DEP regarding the CFI remediation, the Work Plan has been submitted to the Department for their approval. Upon receipt of DEP's approval, site activities will continue.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The Board of Directors went into Executive Session at 10:35 A.M. to discuss the on-going litigation. No real estate items will be discussed

OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business to come before the Board.

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:50 A.M.

APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2001.

John S. Kassees, Secretary