Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting
August 17, 2001

Board of Directors present were: Chairman Ebel, Frost, Hammel, Houck, Kassees, Musser, Snoke and Wood. Absent was Clark. Staff present were: Warner, Buller, Forster, Garner, Lausch, Norris, Olson and Dougherty. Also present were: Solicitor Alex Henderson and Solicitor Bob Frankhouser, Hartman Underhill & Brubaker; Jim Klecko, Covanta Energy; Amy Leeking, Lancaster New Era; Jon Rutter, Intelligencer Journal and citizens as listed on the attached sign-in sheet.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

On motion by Wood, second by Frost and unanimous vote, the Minutes of the June 15, 2001 meeting were approved.

Mr. Ebel stated that at the June 15, 2001 Board Meeting there was a request by some members of the public that the Board consider changing the schedule of the Board meetings. After polling the Board for their comments, Mr. Ebel stated that although this time doesn't suit all members of the public, it does work for the Board and the Board will continue to meet as scheduled.

Mr. Ebel introduced Lester Houck who was appointed by the Lancaster County Commissioners to the Board to fill the remaining term of Mr. Varljen. Also introduced were Valerie Buller, the newly hired Communications Manager for the Authority, and Solicitor Alex Henderson, filling in for George Brubaker, and Solicitor Bob Frankhouser, who is working with the Authority on current litigation.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Chairman Ebel opened the meeting for public comment.

Mary Glazier, 269 Chestnut Grove Road, Conestoga. Mrs. Glazier reiterated her request that the Board vary the schedule of some of the Board meetings.

Mrs. Glazier shared with the Board a situation that occurred as a result of a Valley Protein spill on River Road. Mrs. Glazier drove through this extremely noxious smelling material. She thanked Mr. Warner for his courtesy during her telephone call to him and his follow-up letter. She wanted to express her appreciation to the landfill personnel who did a terrific job cleaning her vehicle. Mrs. Glazier said she wanted to state to those people who do not live near the landfill that this is the kind of thing, that no matter how good of a job you do, accidents happen.

Mr. Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that the Board will take her remarks into consideration and that he will pass on her appreciation to the landfill employees.

Ron Harper, Jr., 1 Harper Lane, Stevens. Mr. Harper agreed with Mrs. Glazier a compromise would be great on the meeting schedule. Mr. Harper also asked if Mr. Houck could give background information on himself.

Mr. Houck - Mr. Houck responded that he has been a Supervisor for Salisbury Township for 26 years. He is retired from a business that he and his wife had. He has been a member of the LCSWMA Citizens Advisory Committee and Lancaster County Planning Commission. Mr. Houck added he hopes he will be an asset to the LCSWMA Board of Directors.

Mr. Harper - Mr. Harper asked, "What about Republican politics?"

Mr. Houck - Mr. Houck stated that he is a registered Republican.

Mr. Harper - Mr. Harper stated that he meant serving on committees.

Mr. Houck - Mr. Houck responded that he is a committee person in his Township, adding that it is not because he necessarily wanted to be but because it is difficult to get people.

Jim McElroy, 2445 Gamber Road, Washington Boro. Mr. McElroy said that the Authority's mission statement is intentionally omitting, "Generated by the residents of Lancaster County". It is not showing the Authority's true intentions about waste generated outside the county. Secondly, signatures on the Statement of Conditions of the Manor Township 1986 Mandate shows that you continue to violate that Agreement. Thirdly, Mr. McElroy stated that he was flying over the landfill several weeks ago and saw equipment operators repairing a tear in the liner and threatening the integrity of the liner and asked what became of the leachate.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated he will comment on all three of Mr. McElroy's comments. The Authority has not changed its mission statement. Mr. Warner said he has been clear about it and he knows Mr. McElroy continues to have a problem with the way it is written. Mr. Warner said he has continued to explain it at every Board meeting. The Authority has never changed the mission statement. He has explained that he inserted, "Lancaster County" to be more descriptive to one presentation made to the February 12^th Manor Township Planning Commission. The Authority has been very open with the fact that we do import waste into the waste-to-energy plant because we were forced to do that due to a Supreme Court decision back in 1994. Mr. Warner added that a mission statement is a mission statement. We operate under the guidelines of that mission statement. Even when Lancaster County was inserted it didn't say exclusively Lancaster County.

Mr. McElroy's second statement - it is constantly misconstrued that we signed that agreement. I am not saying we are not in agreement because we abide by all of the 1986 Zoning Hearing Board points. The word "never" is not in that document. The fact is that every landowner may have conditions put on them to use their land. Every landowner has a right someday to ask that a condition be removed. We have not violated the agreement. We operate and abide under those 16 conditions. All we are saying is that there is a possibility that sometime down the road we may come before the Zoning Hearing Board and ask that a condition be removed. We are not in violation for possibly wanting to ask someday.

Thirdly, on May 31^st, we had an equipment operator at the landfill make a mistake. The teeth of the bucket went through the liner. The spotter recognized immediately what had happened. We immediately stopped digging. The teeth went through the liner but did not penetrate the clay. The tear was 6 feet wide and 8 feet long. We immediately excavated around that hole to expose the area. We immediately notified PADEP and Manor Township. We had a special liner installation contractor come in with our engineer, ARM. The tear was underneath a berm that joins two cells. There was no liquid flow through the liner system. We had to basically rebuild the liner system in that area. An engineer certified the seal repair.

Mike Bare, 107 Chestnut Grove Road, Conestoga. Mr. Bare asked, "The volume of Lancaster County trash grows and the population of the county increases, does the Authority plan on eliminating hauling in out-of-state trash and do you have a timetable for that or will you expand the incinerator?"

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said that if we expand it will be to manage the growth in Lancaster County. If you remember in the presentation on February 12^th, there is a chart that shows the capacity of the waste-to-energy plant. As Lancaster County grows and we get up to 385,000 tons of burnable waste a year, the need for out-of-county material will diminish. Financially, as long as we are able to get the rates for Lancaster County waste, we have no need to continue bringing in out-of-county business. We have already started doing that. We got rid of 15,000 tons last year because we no longer need that waste in the waste-to-energy plant.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked if Mr. Warner would commit to eliminating the out-of-state and out- of- county trash when LCSWMA has enough volume of Lancaster County trash?

Mr Ebel - Mr. Ebel said that this is one of those decisions that one cannot make anytime until you get to that point. We still have to balance our fiduciary responsibilities to our bond holders with our commitment to handling all the municipal waste in the County. Mr. Ebel added there is no way we can make a commitment to you today that when we are full with Lancaster County waste that we are never going to import anything else. That would be irresponsible to the fiduciary commitment that we have.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked, "Who makes the decision on what direction this Board is going? Is it the Board only, does DEP have a say in it, do the County Commissioners have a say in it?"

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied that it is the Board's decision.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked what other restraints are there to stop the Authority from hauling in all kinds of trash just to make money as it has been.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that the capacity of the facility is finite. The landfill can only take in 2,000 tons of waste a day. PADEP determines that.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked if the Authority can petition PADEP for a change. Why does Modern Landfill take in so much trash?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that this Authority is restricted on what is taken into the landfill. Part of what we do is to fulfill the County Plan and the principals behind it, and that is to make the landfill last as long as possible. That's why Lancaster County invested in a waste-to-energy plant. Modern Landfill doesn't care where their waste comes from because their goal is to take in as much as possible. Modern Landfill has different goals. The agreement with the County says the Authority can do what it wants but only to the extent of not interfering with our core responsibility, and that is to take care of the municipal waste generated in Lancaster County. The landfill is permitted to take 2,000 tons a day, the waste-to-energy facility is permitted to take 1,200 tons per day, that means the capacity of the system is restricted to 3,200 tons per day. The 2,000 landfill tons are even more restricted because of the community goals and Zoning Hearing Board decision. There is no capacity for more. The incinerator is full. The landfill takes ash, construction demolition waste and Lancaster County manufacturing companies waste that cannot be burned. That's the mix and it's only 1,100 tons a day.

John May, 100 Red Fox Road, Millersville. At the June meeting there was a discussion about employees being given keys to the landfill. It also came to light that the Authority's insurance company, AIG, was not aware of this practice. Mr. May asked if this has stopped and have the keys been retrieved from the employees?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said, "No, we allow our employees who work at that site to have keys and that is going to continue."

Mr. May - Mr. May responded that is foolish. The Board has an obligation not to permit that to continue and that it is irresponsible.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner asked who should have keys to the facility.

Mr. May - Mr. May told Mr. Warner he was talking to the Board. Liability for accidents that could occur after hours, not being able to monitor what goes into the landfill is irresponsible. Notify the insurance company and check with the solicitors.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner stated he will make sure the Authority insurance company knows. But if Mr. May is passing judgement on the character of our employees, Mr. Warner takes offense to that.

Mr. May - Mr. May responded no. He was just saying that there is no control over what goes on and one employee gave a key to a friend, remember?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied that it was given to another employee.

Mr. May - Mr. May said it was not good practice and he thinks that is one of the responsibilities of the Board is to ensure good practices are always maintained at the landfill.

Cabell Kladky, 109 Chestnut Grove Road, Conestoga. Mrs. Kladky commented that she has been coming to LCSWMA Board meetings since November and this is a public authority. She stated she has heard very little discussion among the Board.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked Mr. Houck when he ceased serving on the Citizens Advisory Board?

Mr. Houck - Mr. Houck replied more than 4 years ago.

Mrs. Klady - Mrs. Kladky said that the Authority canceled its October 13, 2000 meeting. But later it was found that the Board did meet at the Hampton Inn. She asked, "Why did you say you canceled it and why did you cancel it? "She added, "Mr. Frost you were the chair at the time would you answer that"?

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost replied that he could not recall the circumstances but he believes the October meeting was canceled (if it was and he didn't happen to recall) but it probably was because we were meeting every other month.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that management makes the arrangements and that is why he wants to answer this.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said, "You make the arrangements but who on the Board makes the decisions?"

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said he was going to give Mrs. Kladky an answer whether she wanted to hear it or not. The fact is that the Board meeting was canceled. On October 13^th in a budget workshop for staff to present information, the Board met to review a detailed draft of the preliminary budget. This Board has been conducting budget workshop meetings for years.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked if the workshop meeting was announced.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner replied no it was not; it was a workshop.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky said that the Board also had an Executive Committee meeting the day before the November meeting which adopted the resolution to approve the option agreements with the Barley family. Was that executive committee meeting announced to the public?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded, "Yes it was."

Mr. Kladky - Mr. Kladky asked if LCSWMA has a choice whether or not to exercise the Barley option agreement or could the Authority just end the agreement now simply by not making the payments? Is there anything requiring you to buy the Barley property or is this something at LCSWMA discretion?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said the Board decides and could walk away today.

Rhea Cosentino, 232 Oak Road, Conestoga. Ms. Cosentino asked, "What type of information is not in the public domain and who makes that determination on what is public and not public domain? " She also asked who initiated the whole issue of rezoning the Barley Farm parcel. Who initiated the meeting, was it Mr. Warner or Mr. Goodhart?

Solicitor Henderson - Mr. Henderson said that the large bulk of information is public domain. He knows people have asked for large amounts of information and large amounts have been requested at various times.

Leslie Osborne, 109 Oak Road, Conestoga. Ms. Osborne interrupted, asking why were the tipping fees blacked out of the contracts she requested.

Mr. Henderson - Mr. Henderson asked that he be allowed to finish answering one question at a time. There are some specific items that are confidential for various reasons and we would have to look at each item to see if it was a personnel issue and in order to answer what made it confidential. But the bulk of the information is not. To answer Ms. Osborne, Mr. Henderson replied that he is not familiar with what she is referring to, perhaps it is pricing information that may compromise the Authority's position. I don't know. But if you ask Mr. Warner I am sure he will answer.

Mr. Warner answered the second part of the question saying Mr. Goodhart initiated the meeting.

Mr. Ebel called the public comment of the meeting over. He invited all the members of the public to stay because there would be a presentation that should interest them.

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

Landfill Expansion - ARM has been doing some alternative landfill development planning concerning land in the Creswell area, inclusive of the old Creswell landfill and the Barley properties for which the Authority holds purchase options. Mr. Warner shared some of the findings for consideration as the Authority continues to go forward to develop additional capacity in the Creswell area. Mr. Warner stated that there is a possibility that the Creswell Landfill could be reused. One option would be to build on top of the closed Creswell Landfill. Copies of the presentation were distributed to the citizens present.

Mr. Ebel added that the Authority is at a stage in the process where we are beginning to do some really detailed planning which we don't expect will conclude for a number of years. We think it is accurate to say that we had to do some preliminary planning to establish a potential value for the Authority before we tried to negotiate any agreements for land. That is what we did in executive session prior to that time. We now have those agreements; so now we are exploring how we could use this at some future time.

A lengthy discussion and slide presentation followed showing some of the findings that the Authority is continuing to work toward in developing additional capacity in the Creswell area. The slides gave information on the following: Developing Landfill Alternatives; Creswell Landfill Re-use Benefits; Landfill Alternatives Capacity/Acre of Disposal Area; Capacity Summary / Capital Cost; Capital Cost / Benefit Comparison; Barley Land Parcels Soil Valuation; and Creswell Reuse Alternative Soil Supply Option.

Comments of Ned Wehler of the ARM Group Inc. included slides showing information on the following: Creswell Re-use Engineering Considerations; Creswell Landfill Re-use Advantages; Creswell Landfill Re-use Issues; Creswell Re-use/Phase I Barley Combination; Creswell Landfill Re-use Feasibility; and preliminary maps showing Options 8, 9 and 10.

All of the alternatives being considered have certain design issues, certain regulatory issues. The reuse of the Creswell Landfill uses an absolute maximum of air space. The design concept has been used before in a number of landfills in Pennsylvania. In order to assure that the Authority may meet its goal for having a 30 year life, there may be a need to combine Creswell Landfill and Phase I of the Barley tract. There is a lot more flexibility concerning slopes, footprints, heights, and storm water. Another advantage in the combination is that there are design alternatives that could be used both in Creswell and Phase I of Barley to achieve as much as 40 years of life. That is the other alternative that could be developed. Another advantage is that as the soil is taken for Phase I Barley could be done in a manner so that the subgrade is developed for a future landfill cell to be built in the Phase I Barley area. Mr. Wehler reiterated that both concepts are things that have been developed on paper. It is conceptual engineering done in the office, done in accordance with existing design and siting regulations. He added it is essential that future feasibility considerations be done.

Mr. Ebel noted that this is an information presentation. Our next step would be to get an estimate from ARM as to what detailed studies would cost.

Mr. Ebel asked if there were any comments from the Board.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost asked if there is airspace between the Frey Farm Landfill and the Creswell Landfill that is usable. Is there potential for some future study that might extend it additionally?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner said yes, but that it would be decades from now. We would not try to incorporate going in between Creswell and Frey Farm Landfill during the development of Creswell because we need that access area for all types of maintenance and taking care of the Frey Farm after it is done.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost commented that he supports the work being done.

Mr. Snoke - Mr. Snoke commented on the value of the dirt on the Barley tract. Having the source of dirt right next to the Landfill site is a huge advantage and a tremendous value.

Mr. Ebel asked if there were comments from the public.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked when the Authority started looking at these alternatives?

Mr. Wehler - Mr. Wehler said that some of the people present may have reviewed ARM's report last year. There were several options which involved Creswell piggy backing. It was as early as May or June of last year that ARM began evaluation how the Creswell Landfill could be integrated into developing alternatives.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked May or June of 2000?

Mr. Wehler responded that it was 2000.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked if anyone has spoken to anyone in Manor Township.

Mr. Wehler - Mr. Wehler responded he has not.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded he did mention the concept in a telephone conversation about a week ago with Barry Smith. Mr. Warner told him it was going to be upcoming and that the Authority was finalizing the presentation to the Board and the public. He does not have a copy of the presentation.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kladky asked is the old Creswell Landfill zoned for excavation?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded yes (that it was).

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked, "Has this idea been done before? Is there a landfill that is putting another landfill on top of an old landfill?"

Mr. Wehler - Mr. Wehler responded, "Yes, two former landfills at Lanchester Landfill. Twice in the past ten years."

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked if Mr. Wehler was talking about an old unlined landfill.

Mr. Wehler - Mr. Wehler replied yes.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked, "Putting a new lined landfill over top of it?"

Mr. Wehler - Mr. Wehler said yes.

Mr. Harper - Mr. Harper said, "Although we cannot replay the past he wanted to commend the creativity of trying to recycle land and it is a great concept from a Waste Management Authority, thinking about recycling the land and the landfill. He also stated that the public is being kept in the know. Things are being done above board and the public has a sense that they are being included in the process. Things are easier to swallow when the public is not surprised."

Mr. Harper asked how new this idea is - it didn't sound like a new idea.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that this is a work in progress. LCSWMA does not have all the answers. When we looked at the Barley property, we looked at it in and of itself to support landfilling. That is how we had to look at it. My job on behalf of the Authority was to get the best transaction possible.

Mr. Frost - Mr. Frost said he thinks it is important that the Board and public remember what is being discussed is a concept. Members of the public have said that they want to be in on the beginning and they are in on the beginning but that we don't have all the answers yet.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked why wasn't this done before purchasing properties and why couldn't that have been done that way.

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded that the Authority needs to control that real estate. The Authority absolutely needed that real estate. The point is we purchased options and that was the beginning of the process. Maybe we have misinterpretations there but we have had a very public process, as scorched as you want to make it. We have had a very public process since the time we entered into options on real estate. We are looking at providing for the future disposal needs of this county 20 years ahead of time. This is not going to be done next month, its not going to be done the next year or the year after. We are continuing to look at it. But in the mean time we control the land. We may use if for landfill, we may use it for dirt.

Mr. Bare - Mr. Bare asked if the Authority is planning on putting landfill expansion in that area?

Mr. Warner - Mr. Warner responded yes, absolutely that is what the Authority is committed to.

Mrs. Kladky - Mrs. Kadky said she appreciated the fact that this is being done in public at this point. However, there is an outraged and organized citizen lawsuits not only in Manor Township but elsewhere in Lancaster County. So as you go on spending public money you need to acknowledge you do not have a permit, you don't have the excavation to move beyond your current zone and that should be an important part of your deliberations.

Mr. Ebel called upon the Executive Director to continue with his report.

Ash Hauling - Two of the ash drivers voluntarily terminated their employment with the Authority in recent weeks. The Operations Department has been asked to defer hiring full-time replacements and take the opportunity to solicit proposals to privatize all or a portion of this trucking work. The situation presents an opportune time to evaluate if any cost and operational benefit could be realized.

Citizens Advisory Committee - The Citizens Advisory Committee met on August 16^th. The meeting included a tour of the Frey Farm Landfill and a presentation on the Developing Landfill Alternatives as discussed at today's meeting.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT - Olson reported on the following:

• LCSWMA Preliminary Results Actual vs. Budget - All Programs for the Month ended July 31, 2001.
  
  
• LCSWMA Accounts Receivable Report and Past Due Detail Analysis as of July 31, 2001.
  
  
• Approval of Disbursements - On motion by Frost, second by Musser and unanimous vote, the Summary of Disbursements for June 2001 in the total amount of $3,200,950 and July 2001 in the amount of $4,129,995 were unanimously approved.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Lausch reported on the following:

• Pilot Computer Recycling Program - Expansion of Tip Fee Waiver - After discussion and on motion by Wood, second by Hammel and unanimous vote, the Board amended its Pilot Computer Recycling Program policy to include accepting computer equipment from Lancaster County government and municipal offices, schools, and non-profit organizations free of charge. For businesses, for no charge, LCSWMA will accept up to a limit of five CPU's and five monitors. A $5.00 fee will be applied for additional units; but in no instance will more than 25 units be accepted.
  
  
• Printed Materials Bid - Annually the Authority receives bids for Printed Materials. Bids were received from three vendors. On motion by Snoke, second by Hammel and unanimous vote, the Board approved entering into a contract for Printed Materials on an as-needed basis with Edgewood Printing Company for the period September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2002.

OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT - Garner reported on the following:

• Rental Properties - Work required to prepare the Shopf and Kaylor properties for rental is underway. The Shopf property should be completed in mid- August and the lease should start September 1^st. The Kaylor property is completed and the lease is expected to begin August 15^th..

• Transfer Station - Work began on the Pennsylvania State-wide Waste Characterization Study sponsored by DEP. The study is designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of Pennsylvanians residential and commercial waste streams. The sorting team from R.W. Beck expects to process a total of 51 samples of residential and commercial waste from various urban, suburban and rural areas of the County.

• Household Hazardous Waste Facility - The facility received materials from 398 residents in July. In the first three weeks of the Computer Recycling Program, 132 monitors, 106 processing units and 2.5 galore boxes were filled of ancillary computer equipment. Valerie Buller is working with Waste Management (WM) on a 1/4 page advertisement for the Computer Recycling Program. LCSWMA and WM will split the cost of the ad.

• Purchase of Two Van-Type Walking Floor Trailers - On motion by Musser, second by Frost and unanimous vote, the Board awarded the contract for the purchase of two (2) van-type walking floor trailers from Utility/Keystone Trailer Sales, Inc. for a total bid price of $99,000.
  
  
• Household Hazardous Waste Services - On motion by Kassees, second by Wood and unanimous vote, the Board awarded the contract for Household Hazardous Waste Transportation, Storage and Disposal to Cycle Chem, Inc. for the period September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2004 with the option to extend the contract in the 4^th and 5^th year.

RRF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT - Forster reported on the following:

• Site Operations - Electric revenues for July were $1,104,188, or $29,188 ahead of budget, since boiler availability exceeded 98% and the turbine generator had no downtime. There was a mini-outage on Unit #1. Tasks completed included flue gas lane inspection and cleaning, a grate and undergrate inspection, and replacement of three grate bars. Boiler availability for the month was 99.1%.

A total of 35,017 tons of waste was delivered to the facility in July.

• Regulatory Activities - Randy Weiss visited the site on July 20^th for a routine inspection. We do not anticipate any notices of violations.

Results from the 2^nd quarter ash testing event were received, and once again the results are favorable.

The drinking water supply system was sampled at five distribution locations and was analyzed for lead and copper. The average copper concentration in the water was found to be below permissible levels, and lead was not detected in any of the samples.

• Other Activities - Covanta is planning fall outages starting on September 24 and completion on October 12.

TECHNICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - Norris reported on the following:

• Capital Project Administration - The Phase 2 Capping Project has begun. Grace Industries is screening and placing soil in preparation for cap liner placement, currently scheduled to begin in early September.

Notifications have been sent on the upcoming DEP submission of the Radioactive Monitoring Action Plan. Notifications have been sent to Lancaster newspapers for display ads, the Host Municipality, Lancaster Planning Commission and Contiguous Landowners at each facility. The Action Plan should be submitted to DEP in late August.

The DEP approved the CFI Property Work Plan that has been submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED).

• Facilities Compliance and Assurance - SRBC has responded to our consumptive use compliance method modification and has indicated we need to obtain an agreement with Elizabethtown Borough regarding use of the Cornwall Open Pit Mine during drought conditions. We have also requested DEP extend our current NPDES permit an additional six (6) months.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

After a brief recess, the Board of Directors went into Executive Session at 10:10 A.M. to discuss the ongoing litigation.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was no further business to come before the Board.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M.

APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY THIS 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001.

John S. Kassees, Secretary