LANCASTER COUNTY MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010

MARCH 2010

LANCASTER COUNTY

MUNICIPAL WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

2010

LANCASTER COUNTY

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

AUTHORITY

Acknowledgment: The development of this Plan Update was made possible through grant

contributions from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

2010 Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan Update

Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority

March 2010

Prepared For:

Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority 1299 Harrisburg Pike

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17604

Prepared By:

Barton & Loguidice, P.C. Engineers • Environmental Scientists • Planners • Landscape Architects

1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 501

Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011

Lancaster County 2010 Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan Update

1277.001/11.09 - i - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Table of Contents Section Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. E-1

Chapter 1 Description of Waste ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Fraction of the Municipal Waste Stream .....1 1.2 Construction and Demolition Waste...............................................................................2 1.3 Biosolids And Septage ...................................................................................................3 1.4 Yard Waste ....................................................................................................................3 1.5 Infectious and Chemotherapeutic Waste .......................................................................5

Chapter 2 Description of Facilities ..............................................................................................14 2.1 Transfer Station Complex.............................................................................................14 2.2 Household Hazardous Waste Facility ..........................................................................15 2.3 Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility ............................................................16 2.4 Frey Farm Landfill ........................................................................................................20 2.5 Status of Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................22 2.6 Permitted Sites For Agricultural Utilization of Biosolids................................................23 2.7 Other Private Regional Facilities ..................................................................................23

Chapter 3 Estimated Future Capacity.........................................................................................24 3.1 Future County Population Projections..........................................................................24 3.2 Future County Municipal Waste Generation Projections..............................................25 3.3 Other Waste Processing & Disposal Requirements of LCSWMA ................................26 3.4 Impact of Recycling on Future Waste Generation Projections.....................................27 3.5 Capacity of Transfer Station to Handle Projected Waste Stream ................................27 3.6 Capacity of Frey Farm Landfill to Handle Projected Waste Stream.............................31 3.7 Capacity of Resource Recovery Facility to Handle Projected Waste Stream ..............32 3.8 Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................40

Chapter 4 Description of Recyclable Materials ...........................................................................46 4.1 Potential Recyclable Materials in the Municipal Waste Stream ...................................46 4.2 Existing Material Recovery Operations ........................................................................46 4.3 Summary of Municipal Recycling Programs.................................................................52 4.4 Benefits of Recycling....................................................................................................53 4.5 Meeting and Exceeding 35 Percent Recycling Goal ....................................................55

Chapter 5 Selection and Justification..........................................................................................61 5.1 Overview of Selected Municipal Waste Management System.....................................61 5.2 Existing Alternatives.....................................................................................................68 5.3 Construction and Demolition Waste Management .......................................................73 5.4 Biosolids Management System....................................................................................73 5.5 Septage Management System.....................................................................................74


1277.001/11.09 - ii - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Chapter 6 Location......................................................................................................................78 6.1 Location of Facilities and Programs that are Part of Overall System...........................78

Chapter 7 Implementing Entity Identification...............................................................................82 7.1 Define Entity Responsible for Implementing the Municipal Waste Management Plan.82

Chapter 8 Public Function...........................................................................................................84 8.1 Justification of Public Ownership..................................................................................84

Chapter 9 Copies of Ordinances and Resolutions......................................................................86 9.1 Documents Required to Implement the Municipal Waste Management Plan ..............86

Chapter 10 Orderly Extension.....................................................................................................88 10.1 Demonstration that Plan is Consistent with State, Regional and Local Plans..............88

Chapter 11 Methods of Disposal Other Than By Contracts........................................................89 11.1 Vehicles for Managing Processing/disposal Other than Contracts ..............................89

Chapter 12 Non-Interference ......................................................................................................90 12.1 Demonstration that Plan does not Interfere with Other Plans or Facilities ...................90

Chapter 13 Public Participation...................................................................................................91 13.1 Public Participation in Plan Update Process ................................................................91 13.2 Ongoing Public Participation ........................................................................................95

Chapter 14 Other Information .....................................................................................................96


1277.001/11.09 - iii - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Table of Contents - Continued -

Section Page Tables Table 1- 1 - Lancaster County Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Waste and

Recyclables Tonnages for 2005-2008...................................................................... 2 Table 1- 2 - Lancaster County Construction & Demolition Waste and Recyclables

Tonnages for 2005-2008 .......................................................................................... 3 Table 1- 3 - Lancaster County 2008 Sludge and Septage Annual Report Summary ...... 6 Table 2- 1 - RRF Selected Historical Performance Figures........................................... 19 Table 2- 2 - Status of Permits(1)..................................................................................... 22 Table 3- 1 - Projected Population Figures for Lancaster County................................... 25 Table 3- 2 - In-County Municipal Waste Generation Projections................................... 43 Table 3- 3 - Projected Processible Waste Deliveries to LCSWMA RRF........................ 45 Table 4- 1 - Recyclable Materials Available in Lancaster County's Municipal Waste Stream in 2008.............................................................................................................. 48 Table 4- 2 - Actual vs. Estimated Available Quantities of Recyclable Materials

Recovered in 2008 ................................................................................................. 51 Table 4- 3 - Estimated Energy Savings Based on Total Tons Recycled By Lancaster

County in 2008 ....................................................................................................... 54 Table 4- 4 - Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) That Process Commingled, Single

Stream and Source Separated Recyclables Serving Lancaster County................. 55 Table 4- 5 - Summary of Municipal Yard Waste Facilities in Lancaster County ............ 57 Table 4- 6 - Lancaster County Municipal Recycling Program Summary ....................... 58 Table 5- 1 - Alternative Disposal Facilities in Pennsylvania .......................................... 72 Table 5- 2 - Permitted Biosolids Land Application Sites in Lancaster County ............... 74 Figures Figure 3-1 – Northeast and South Waste Sheds........................................................... 30 Figure 6-2 - Existing Municipal Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities.................... 81


1277.001/11.09 - iv - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

Table of Contents - Continued -

Section Appendices Appendix A Municipal Waste Management Agreement Appendix B Municipal Waste Flow Ordinance Appendix C County Waste Flow Ordinance Appendix D Resolution by Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority

Board of Directors Approving Plan Update Appendix E: Resolution by Lancaster County Board of Commissioners Approving Plan

Update Appendix F Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Letter Approving

Plan Update Appendix G Correspondence and Public Participation Appendix H Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority 2010 Rules and

Regulations Appendix I Dvirka and Bartilucci March 2009 Executive Summary Appendix J NERC Model Graphs and Tables Appendix K Emergency Bypass Facility Letter of Agreement Between LCSWMA and York County SWA


1277.001/11.09 E-1 Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2010 LANCASTER COUNTY MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE

The 2010 Lancaster County Municipal Waste Management Plan Update presents

current information regarding Lancaster County’s Integrated System for the collection,

transportation, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in

the County. This Plan Update is, in essence, a confirmation and extension of municipal

waste planning efforts that were conducted in 1986, 1990 and 1999. In accordance

with Pa Act 101, the 2010 Plan Update documents current municipal solid waste

management and recycling activities in the County, projects needs over the next 10

years, identifies the Integrated System to be utilized to fulfill solid waste and recycling

needs over the next 10 years, and identifies the steps that will likely be taken by the

Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) to secure adequate

processing and disposal capacity for Lancaster County’s municipal waste through the

year 2020.

Between 2010 and 2020, Lancaster County’s population is projected to grow from

approximately 509,800 to 549,300 residents, nearly an eight percent increase. This

growth is projected to result in an increase in the tons of municipal waste being

generated in Lancaster County, from 595,600 tons in 2010 to 632,800 tons in 2020.

The County currently recycles about 37 percent of the generated municipal waste

stream, and this recycling rate is projected to continue through the year 2020. With a

growing County waste stream, the actual tons of waste diverted to recycling are also

expected to grow, from 190,000 tons in 2010 to nearly 205,000 tons by 2020.



Lancaster County’s municipal waste is currently being managed through a combination

of public and private facilities and operations. LCSWMA owns and operates the Frey

Farm Landfill in Manor Township. The Authority owns the 1,200 ton-per-day Resource

Recovery Facility (RRF) in Conoy Township, and has contracted with Covanta

Lancaster, Inc. (CLI) for operation and maintenance of this facility. The Authority also

owns and operates the Transfer Station Complex in Manheim Township, which includes

the main Transfer Station, Small Vehicle Drop-Off (SVDO), Household Hazardous

Waste (HHW) facility, maintenance facility, and administrative offices. These Authority

facilities are operated in coordination and conjunction with a number of municipal and

private operations, which together comprise the current Integrated System of municipal

waste management in Lancaster County.

The 2010 Plan Update recommends a continuation of this Integrated System. This

system fulfills public goals, is efficient, is cost-effective, and identifies and takes steps

that are needed to assure the provision of sufficient capacity to meet the County’s waste

management and recycling needs. Over the next 10 years, this Integrated System will

continue to provide County residents and businesses with safe, economical, cost-

effective, and environmentally sound waste management through a combination of

public and private participation efforts.

The 2010 Plan Update contains the following key solid waste management components

(briefly summarized below, and presented in much greater detail in the body of the 2010

Plan Update):

Waste Reduction and Recycling – Recyclables collection will continue as a municipal

or private function, depending on the collection systems established in each of the

County’s 60 municipalities. The Authority’s Transfer Station will continue to serve as a

site for mixed recyclables consolidation, with shipping to private materials processors



and markets. White goods collection, processing and shipment will continue through

both Authority efforts and the private sector. Yard waste collection, with composting,

mulch production or land application, will continue to be a municipal or private function.

Construction and demolition waste recycling will continue as a private function. The

Authority will continue to support recycling activities where appropriate.

Waste Transfer – The Authority’s Transfer Station Complex on the Harrisburg Pike is

permitted to handle 2,200 tons per day of waste. This facility has both commercial and

small vehicle drop-off areas. The Transfer Station Complex is of adequate size to

handle the County’s municipal waste transfer needs through the planning period. In

order to provide for more efficient transportation of waste and/or optimize the utilization

of an expanded RRF, the Authority may consider developing one or more satellite

transfer stations in the southern and/or eastern parts of the County. These satellite

transfer stations may be a component of a regional disposal agreement with a

neighboring county who wishes to process their waste through waste-to-energy rather

than landfilling, but does not have the scale to construct a WTE facility.

Resource Recovery Facility – It has been determined through a recent study that the

RRF is insufficient in size to meet all of Lancaster County’s municipal waste processing

needs throughout the planning period. In accordance with the findings of that study,

and based on the confirmation of certain assumptions regarding the feasibility of this

project (as detailed in that study), the Plan Update details the possible expansion of the

RRF from 1,200 to 1,800 tons per day processing capacity. With this expansion, the

RRF would be sufficient to meet the County’s needs for decades and would minimize

the need to divert processible waste to the Frey Farm Landfill. Under an emergency

bypass agreement, the York County Resource Recovery Center could be used to

handle processible waste during planned or unplanned shutdowns or maintenance of



mechanical equipment at the RRF, allowing the Authority to continue managing the

County’s waste through waste-to-energy.

Frey Farm Landfill – The Frey Farm Landfill is used to dispose of non-processible

MSW, bypass MSW from the RRF, construction and demolition waste, wastewater

sludge, certain permitted residual wastes and combined ash residue. The FFLF is

projected to be filled before the end of this planning period (by 2019). A separate

engineering evaluation has determined that a vertical expansion of the Frey Farm

Landfill, using mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) berms, is technically and

economically feasible, and is environmentally sound. Therefore, the Authority is

pursuing a vertical expansion of its Landfill, which will provide approximately 10 million

cubic yards of additional airspace for landfilling. With this expansion, the Frey Farm

landfill will be sufficient to meet the County’s waste disposal needs for decades.

Hazardous Materials Management – The Authority’s permanent household hazardous

waste (HHW) facility, located at the Transfer Station Complex, has resulted in a

significant increase in both the number of County users and in the tonnages of HHW

being dropped off. Materials accepted at this facility include used oil, antifreeze,

fluorescent bulbs, batteries, paints, computers and televisions. This system helps

ensure the safe processing, recycling, and/or disposal of this potentially hazardous

wastestream, and will continue throughout the planning period.

Septage and Biosolids Management – These materials are currently handled through

a combination of processing at wastewater treatment plants, land application on farms,

and landfilling. These combined practices are projected to continue throughout the

planning period.



System Management and Flow Control – The Authority owns a system of waste

management facilities, and operates these facilities in conjunction with municipal and

private waste management and recycling efforts. Together, this Integrated System of

public and private waste management services meets the needs of Lancaster County’s

residents and businesses, in an environmentally sound, efficient, and cost-effective

manner. This joint public/ private system will continue throughout the planning period.

A system of flow control ordinances and hauler agreements is used to direct Lancaster

County’s municipal waste to Authority facilities; this system will continue throughout the

planning period.


1277.001/11.09 - 1 - Barton & Loguidice, P.C.

CHAPTER 1 DESCRIPTION OF WASTE

The purpose of this chapter is to describe and determine the quantity of municipal waste

(MSW) generated in Lancaster County that will be managed by the system defined in

this Plan. To estimate the quantity of municipal waste generated on an annual basis,

current and historical quantity data were used, including weight records from the

facilities under the control of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority

(LCSWMA, or Authority), PA DEP Waste Destination and Origin Reports, and annual

Authority Municipal Recycling Reports. A summary of this data is provided below.

1.1 RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRACTION OF THE MUNICIPAL

WASTE STREAM

The residential, commercial, and institutional fraction of the County’s solid waste stream

consists of waste generated by residential (homes, apartments), commercial (offices,

retail stores, restaurants, industrial lunchrooms and offices, etc.), and institutional

sources (municipal buildings, libraries, schools, etc.), and community events.

Recyclables generated/ diverted from these sources are also included in the tonnages

reported below. Table 1-1 reports the total quantities of residential, commercial, and

institutional waste processed or disposed of from Lancaster County sources for the

years 2005 through 2008.



Table 1- 1 - Lancaster County Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Waste and Recyclables Tonnages for 2005-2008(1)

Type of Material Year

2005 2006 2007 2008

Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Waste

Recyclables (diverted)

318,441

188,040

323,179

181,358

316,971

182,902

303,319

177,930

Total: 506,481 504,537 499,873 481,249

(1) Source: LCSWMA Reports

1.2 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE

The Construction and Demolition (C&D) component of the waste stream is accepted at

the LCSWMA Transfer Station and transferred to LCSWMA’s Frey Farm Landfill (FFLF),

or is delivered directly to the landfill for disposal. This material is not accepted for

processing at LCSWMA’s Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) because portions of mixed

loads are non-combustible and could potentially damage the boilers.

The amount of C&D waste collected for disposal on an annual basis from County

sources increased from 81,000 tons in 2005 to over 97,000 tons in 2008, as shown in

Table 1-2. The March 2009 Dvirka and Bartilucci Waste System Processing and

Disposal Capacity Evaluation Report (D&B Report) projected the C&D waste stream to

decrease, and then remain steady at 90,000 tons throughout the next ten-year planning

period. The Report’s projected initial decrease in C&D waste is based on the current

recessionary state of the U.S. economy, as well as the noticeable decrease in

construction activity in the housing market.

Table 1-2 reports the total quantities of C&D waste processed or disposed of, and C&D

waste recycled, from Lancaster County sources for 2005 through 2008.



Table 1- 2 - Lancaster County Construction & Demolition Waste and Recyclables Tonnages for 2005-2008(1)

Type of Material Year

2005 2006 2007 2008

C&D Waste

C&D Recyclables (diverted)

81,113

6,171

88,679

5,029

85,737

4,858

97,591

6,371

Total: 87,284 93,708 90,595 103,962 (1) Source: LCSWMA Reports

1.3 BIOSOLIDS AND SEPTAGE

LCSWMA maintains an annual sludge and septage hauler’s report. The information

from the Authority’s sludge and septage hauler’s report for 2008 is presented in Table 1-

3. Table 1-3, located at the end of this Chapter, presents data on the quantities of

biosolids produced in the County for 2008, the biosolids and septage haulers serving

the County, the waste type(s) collected by each hauler, and the disposal/ utilization

facilities used.

As Table 1-3 illustrates, biosolids and septage are 1) further processed at other

wastewater treatment plants, 2) disposed in area landfills, or 3) land-applied on farmers’

fields.

1.4 YARD WASTE

The Authority’s Rules and Regulations define yard waste as “garden residues, leaves,

shrubbery, tree trimmings, branches, grass clippings, and sod.” These materials are

organics which readily decompose in either an agricultural land application process or a

composting system. Since 1992, the Authority has required that yard waste be source-

separated from MSW. In 2002, the Authority coordinated with municipalities and private



haulers, a pilot curbside collection program for yard waste (leaves, woody material) in

order to divert this material from the waste stream. The program was successful and, at

this time, includes 39 municipalities that currently have some type of yard waste and/or

leaf curbside collection program. Private haulers collect the curbside yard waste and

deliver it to one of the 8 existing municipal or to one of three local private composting

sites. Additionally, residents, businesses and haulers may dispose of yard waste at any

of these facilities.

The Authority purchased a large shredder machine that processes yard waste into a

coarse mulch product. The Authority provides an operator and transports the shredder

to any municipality that has a large amount of yard waste to process, but that doesn’t

have the means to do so.

The following is a summary of the tons of yard waste recycled from 2005 through 2008:

2005 – 33,331 tons

2006 – 31,875 tons

2007 – 28,593 tons

2008 – 30,223 tons

The development of “pay-as-you-throw” programs for yard wastes, which provide for

separate collection, has prompted residents to modify lawn care maintenance habits.

Many people have begun to “grass-cycle” as a means of reducing the amount of grass

clippings needing collection. Grass-cycling uses mulching mowers to let shredded

grass clippings lay on the lawns and decompose in-place. Others collect grass

clippings and place them in backyard composting piles on their properties. As a result,

there has been a significant decline in the amount of grass being collected and

delivered to facilities.



Each municipality in Lancaster County establishes their own per-bag cost for yard waste

collected at the curb. Generally, the yard waste bags cost residents between $1 and $2

per bag. LCSWMA cooperatively purchases Kraft compostable bags on behalf of each

municipality to get a better per-bag bulk purchase price. Leaf waste is disposed of

mainly at the municipal or private sites mentioned previously. There are approximately

10 farms in Lancaster County that accept leaf waste from municipalities or from

contracted haulers directly. These farms use the leaf waste for land application, to

rebuild organic matter and improve the soil.

1.5 INFECTIOUS AND CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC WASTE

Under DEP’s regulations, infectious and chemotherapeutic waste (ICW) generated by

hospitals, nursing homes, clinics, dental and medical offices is included as part of the

municipal waste stream. Therefore, it is LCSWMA’s responsibility to ensure proper

management of this portion of the municipal waste stream.

Most ICW is processed by the generators on-site, through autoclaving, with sterilized

materials being disposed of in the Frey Farm Landfill. In 2008, 835 tons of ICW was

accepted for disposal at the FFLF.

For generators with no on-site processing system, these materials are collected by one

of a number of private companies that offer medical waste collection services. To

ensure the proper handling of this material by private haulers, the 1993 Municipal Waste

Plan Update amended the Authority’s Rules and Regulations to require that all vehicles

used for the commercial collection of ICW generated in the County be licensed by the

Authority.

Today, medical facilities continue to manage ICW effectively either through on-site

processing or through arrangements with commercial contractors to safely transport,

process and dispose of this material.


Table 1- 3 - Lancaster County 2008 Sludge and Septage Annual Report Summary1

Waste Type

Collected2

Sources Served3 Quantity of Sludge

Hauler

SL SE HT O R C I M

Utilization/Disposal Facilities

Wet Tons

% Solids Gallons

Quantity of Septage (Gallons)

Aqua Wastewater Management

X X X X X Valley Forge WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Aqua Wastewater Management (Paradise Twp. WWTP)

X X X Valley Forge WWTP 364,800

Frey Farm Landfill 135.8

Modern Landfill 699.1

Armstrong Environmental 305,430

Armstrong Enviro. Services

X X X X X X X X

City of Lancaster 707,084

Armstrong Enviro. Services (Quarryville Boro WWTP)

X X Armstrong Enviro. Services 141,600

Associated Products X X X X X X X Derry Township 50,000

Baily’s Septic Service X Berks County WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Derry Twp WWTP 73,700 Baker’s Septic Service X X X X

Manheim Boro WWTP 169,200

Bauman’s Septic Service X X Derry Twp 20,000

Bollinger Septic Service Nothing to report in 2008

D.L. Burkett Construction, Inc. (Conoy Twp WWTP)

X X Frey Farm Landfill 158.1

Columbia WWTP X X Glen Longenecker Farm 1,016 14

William H. Davis & Sons X X X X LASA WWTP 52,000

Devonshire Septic Service

X X LASA WWTP 784,000



Table 1- 3 - Lancaster County 2008 Sludge and Septage Annual Report Summary1 (Cont.)

Waste Type Collected2 Sources Served3 Quantity of Sludge Hauler

SL SE HT O R C I M

Utilization/Disposal Facilities Wet Tons % Solids Gallons


Kline’s Services, Inc.

Manheim Boro WWTP

Exeter Twp WWTP

Earthcare (North Star Waste LLC)

X X X X

Berks County WWTP

Nothing to report in 2008

Enviro-Clean Septic Service

X X LASA WWTP 15,000

Ephrata Boro WWTP (Ephrata Plant 1)

X X 2,657 17.4

Ephrata Boro WWTP (Ephrata Plant 2)

X X

E.A.W.T.A.C.S (Various Farms)

769 19.8

Manheim Boro WWTP 31,500 2,626,130 Thomas H. Erb & Sons X X X X X X

Derry Twp WWTP 80,000

Fins Environmental Service, LLC

X X X X LASA WWTP 1,074,600

Armstrong Environmental GWT Sludge Disposal Services

X X X X X Springettsbury Twp WWTP


C.F. Heckman & Son X X Manheim Boro WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Hershey Portable Toilets X X Annville Twp WWTP 71,531

Lemoyne Boro WWTP Jacey, Inc. X X X X

Derry Twp WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Jonathan Horblinski X X Coatesville WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Exeter Twp WWTP 9,750 Ink’s Disposal Service, Inc.

X X X Pottstown Boro WWTP 58,025




Table 1-3 - Lancaster County 2008 Sludge and Septage Annual Report Summary1 (Cont.)


SL SE HT O R C I M

Utilization/Disposal

Facilities Wet Tons

% Solids Gallons




Springettsbury Twp WWTP 61,000

Kauffman’s Septic Service

X X X X X

LASA WWTP

424,400

Exeter Twp WWTP 12,000 10,500

Kline’s Services Inc. 2,481,895 7,487,278

Manheim Boro WWTP 2,709,500 401,150

Adamstown Boro WWTP 376,000

Kline’s Services Inc. X X X X X X

LASA WWTP 768,000


Frey Farm Landfill 15.9 20 Kline’s Services, Inc. (Christiana Boro WWTP)

X X

Kline’s Services, Inc. 22,400

Manheim Boro WWTP 24,000 Kline’s Services, Inc. (Clay Twp WWTP)

X X Kline’s Services, Inc. 79,000

Kline’s Services, Inc. (Conestoga Twp.)

X X Kline’s Services, Inc. Nothing to report in 2008

Kline’s Services, Inc. (Elizabethtown Boro WWTP)

X X Kline’s Services, Inc. Nothing to report in 2008

Kline’s Services, Inc. (Ephrata Twp)


Kline’s Services, Inc. 5,000 Kline’s Services, Inc. (Leacock Twp WWTP)

X X Creswell (LCSWMA) WWTP 1,188,000

Kline’s Services, Inc. (Manheim Boro WWTP)






SL SE HT O R C I M



Kline’s Services, Inc. (Marietta-Donegal WWTP)


Kline’s Services, Inc. (Paradise Twp WWTP)

X X Creswell (LCSWMA) WWTP 96,000

Manheim Boro WWTP 114,000 Kline’s Services, Inc. (Penn Twp WWTP)

X Kline’s Services, Inc.

560,000 13,910

Manheim Boro WWTP 828,000 Kline’s Services, Inc. (Quarryville Boro

WWTP) x

Kline’s Services, Inc.

126,775

Meadow View Farm

Kline’s Services, Inc. Kline’s Services, Inc. (Terre Hill Boro WWTP)

X X

Manheim Boro WWTP


Kline’s Services, Inc. (Warwick Twp WWTP)


Kline’s Services, Inc. 108,800 Kline’s Services, Inc. (West Cocalico WWTP)

X X Manheim Boro WWTP 216,000

Kline’s Services, Inc. (West Earl Twp WWTP)

X X Kline’s Services, Inc. 1,080,000

LASA X X Frey Farm Landfill 7,783.9 33

Frey Farm Landfill 2,070.7 16.4 LCSWMA (Elizabethtown WWTP)

X X Resource Recovery Facility 744.3 16.2

Springettsbury Twp WWTP 317,000 Lanco Septic Service X X X

LASA WWTP 1,491,000

Marietta-Donegal Joint Sewer Authority

X X Frey Farm Landfill 459.5 22





SL SE HT O R C I M Utilization/Disposal

Facilities Wet Tons

% Solids Gallons


William P. McGovern Inc. X X X X Southwest DE Co. Municipal Authority

215,000

William P. McGovern, Inc. (Bart Twp WWTP)

X X Armstrong Environmental

Services 3.6 38,500

Baro Farm 329 27 Millersville Boro WWTP X X X

Frey Farm Landfill 636 27

Mount Joy Boro WWTP X X Brubaker Farm (EQS

Biosolids) 725.9 50.3

Lanchester Landfill 60.1 25 New Holland Boro WWTP (Eagle Disposal)

X X X X X EQS Biosolids 3,266 47

New Holland Boro WWTP 115,570

Manheim Boro WWTP 70,750 63,250 Lloyd Z. Nolt Trucking, Inc.

X X X X X

Ephrata Boro WWTP 1,710,252

Martin & Martin Farm 224,400

Proland Properties Farm 399,400


Lloyd Z. Nolt Trucking, Inc. (Adamstown Boro WWTP)

X X

Ephrata Boro WWTP 11,500

Armstrong Environmental

Derry Twp. WWTP

Ephrata Boro WWTP Nolt Services LLC4 X X X X X X X X

Manheim Boro WWTP

3,737,150

Northern Lancaster County WWTP

X X Beam Road Drying Beds 187.2 1.1 44,900

Peters Septic Tank Pumping

X X X X LASA WWTP 636,000

Kelly Phillips Septic X X X New Holland Boro WWTP Nothing to report in 2008






Facilities Wet Tons

% Solids Gallons


Coatesville WWTP Prettyman Excavating, J.A.

X X X East Marlboro Twp WWTP


Lehigh County WWTP 30 Russell Reid Waste Hauling

X X Russell Reid Waste 50

Christiana Boro WWTP 12,000


LASA WWTP 11,000

Frank Sears Sanitation, LLC

X X X X X

Exeter Twp. WWTP 8,000 14,750

Seldomridge, John B. Jr. X X X New Holland Boro WWTP 148,000

Exeter Twp. WWTP 12,000 28,000 Sharp, Norman L. X X X X X X


Shupp’s Grove X X Shupp’s Grove Fields #1-4 333,000

Snyder & Mylin Septic Services LLC

X X X X LASA WWTP 329,250

Ephrata Boro WWTP

Derry Twp WWTP Sonlight Services X X X X X

Manheim Boro WWTP


ST Services, Inc. (Lititz WWTP) – Custom Ag Services

X X Fahnestock Farm 3,419 4.5 820,000

ST Services, Inc. (Lititz WWTP) – Synagro Mid Atlantic, Inc.

X X Various Farms 8,582 2,058,000






Facilities Wet Tons

% Solids Gallons


Terre Hill Boro WWTP 1,521,000



Manheim Boro WWTP 2,934,000

Pottstown Boro WWTP 232,000


Lonnie Stoltzfus Septic Service

X X X X X X

Exeter Twp WWTP 5,645,000 5,500

Pottstown Boro WWTP 5,500 Lonnie Stoltzfus Septic Service (Earl Twp WWTP)

X X Manheim Boro WWTP 1,078,000

Pottstown Boro WWTP 132,000 Lonnie Stoltzfus Septic Service (Salisbury Twp WWTP)

X X

Manheim Boro WWTP 1,479,700

Manheim Boro WWTP 324,500 Lonnie Stoltzfus Septic Service (Terre Hill Boro WWTP)

X X Pottstown Boro WWTP 5,500

Lonnie Stoltzfus Septic Service (West Cocalico Twp WWTP)

X X Manheim Boro WWTP 353,000





SL SE HT O R C I M




Ephrata Boro WWTP 75,900

Nolt Services, LLC 786,000



Walter M. Strohl LLC X X X X X X X

Armstrong Environmental 14,800

LASA WWTP Weaver & Sturgill X X X X X

New Holland Boro WWTP Nothing to report in 2008

Synagro Mid Atlantic, Inc.

X X Manheim Boro WWTP 5,000 19

Synagro Mid Atlantic, Inc. (LASA WWTP)

X X Various Farms 7,777 31

Trap Zap/The Grease Guy

Walters Ag Facility 2,205

York Waste Disposal/Synagro (Lancaster City WWTP)

X X Modern Landfill 18,525 21

LASA WWTP

Armstrong Enviro.

Waste Recovery Solutions US Environmental Inc. X X X X

Enviro. Recovery Corp.



Derry Twp WWTP 71,500 Walters Services Inc. X X X X X

Walters Ag Facility 35,000

Warwick Twp Municipal Authority (Grit Waste)

X X Frey Farm Landfill 5.1 75

1: Source: LCSWMA Records. 3: R = residential; C = commercial; I = institutional; M = municipal. 2: SL = sludge; SE = septage; HT = holding tank waste; O = other. 4: The Quantity of Septage reported for Nolt Services LLC was reported as a total of all Utilization/Disposal Facilities.



CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES

This chapter describes the facilities currently being utilized to manage the municipal

solid waste (MSW) generated in Lancaster County. Virtually all of Lancaster County’s

MSW is being processed or disposed of in the Lancaster County Solid Waste

Management Authority’s facilities.

2.1 TRANSFER STATION COMPLEX

Construction began on a new (replacement/upgrade) Transfer Station Complex on the

Harrisburg Pike in 2005 and was completed in May 2008. The Transfer Station

Complex was built on the site of the former Jack D. Lausch, Sr. Transfer Station, located

just beyond the Lancaster City limits. The Transfer Station Complex consists of the

main Transfer Station, the Small Vehicle Drop-Off (SVDO) building, the Household

Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW), the maintenance facility and LCSWMA’s

administrative office. The Transfer Station has a PA DEP permit to process up to 2,200

TPD of municipal waste. The Authority currently receives and processes an average of

approximately 286,000 tons annually at the Transfer Station. Every day, approximately

280 loads from commercial haulers and residents are delivered to this facility. Upon

arrival at the Transfer Station Complex, vehicles proceed to the inbound hydraulic

scales where they are weighed, passing through radiation monitoring equipment. Large

vehicles then proceed to the 40,000 square foot main Transfer Building tipping floor

where drivers are directed to one of 10 unloading positions to deposit the waste. Single

stream recyclable material has a designated unloading position, as do construction and

demolition waste and refuse. Small vehicles are directed to the 16,700 square foot

Small Vehicle Drop-Off building, constructed specifically for deliveries made in cars and

pickup trucks. Inside the building, drivers are directed to specific unloading stations

depending upon the type of material being delivered. Authority compliance officers

inspect the loads to ensure that no materials such as tires or appliances, which must be



delivered and processed separately, are mixed in with the trash. After unloading, non-

commercial customers (that do not have tare weights registered with the scale house)

return to the scales to weigh out, pay for the transaction and receive a receipt.

Authority staff operates equipment to push the waste from the main Transfer Building

floor through three cut-out chutes in the floor, where waste falls into top-loading transfer

trailers, parked beneath the tipping floor in the loading tunnel. The loading tunnel has

three floor flush-mounted scales underneath the loading pits. A transfer trailer is able to

be loaded on each scale. A digital scale read-out is located on the tipping floor level,

above the loading pit, to enable the equipment operator to know when a trailer has

reached its legal gross vehicle weight (GVW) capacity (80,000 lbs.). Transfer Station

Complex equipment includes transfer tractor trailers, wheel loaders, excavators, a

backhoe, a skid loader and a sweeper. A maintenance facility on the site provides truck

bays for repair work and vehicle inspections and a wash bay for cleaning vehicles and

equipment. A fuel island is located at the Transfer Station Complex for refueling

Authority equipment. All diesel fuel used by the Authority is a 5% biofuel blend.

2.2 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY

The Household Hazardous Waste Facility, located adjacent to the Authority’s Transfer

Station, began operation in 2006. The previous facility, demolished during the Transfer

Complex upgrades, opened in 1991. In 2008, over 36,000 Lancaster County residents

took advantage of the free service provided at the HHW facility. The permanent

collection facility is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. until 4:00 P.M. and

Saturdays from 8:00 A.M. until 12:00 P.M. The facility consists of a drive-through

receiving area, bulking areas and segregation/storage areas. The Household

Hazardous Waste Facility accepts such wastes as used oil, antifreeze, fluorescent

bulbs, mercury-containing devices, household cleaners, household batteries,

automobile batteries, paints, insecticides, cell phones, computers, televisions, and pool

chemicals.



These materials are marketed to recycling processors, disposed of at LCSWMA

facilities, or transported and disposed by LCSWMA’s contracted hazardous waste

handler.

2.3 LANCASTER COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY

The Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) is located on a forty-eight (48) acre site in Conoy

Township. The RRF is located 20 miles south of Harrisburg, 19 miles northwest of

Lancaster and eight miles north of the intersection of Routes 30 and 441. It is a mass-

burn, municipal waste combustor (“MWC”) facility rated for 1,200 TPD of acceptable

combustible waste. The RRF began commercial operation on May 10, 1991 and has

been in continuous operation since that time.

2.3.a Tipping Building

The RRF includes a totally enclosed tipping floor with eight tipping bays, each 20 feet in

width. The bays back up to a large pit where refuse is stored until it is loaded into one

of three boilers for combustion and energy recovery.

Pit storage is used to equalize daily waste delivery variation on a 5 ½ days-per-week

basis into a constant, seven-day-per-week combustion loading rate. The pit can store

up to 8,000 tons of waste. The pit and other components, such as the combustion waste

charging floor and boiler building, were designed to accommodate a future facility

expansion by the addition of a fourth combustion/steam generation unit.

2.3.b Combustion/Steam Generation Units

Three 400 TPD combustion/steam generation units, which employ a mass-burn

technology and are similar to the design of units previously built by Ogden WTE, are

installed at the RRF.



2.3.c Pollution Control Equipment

The RRF includes one spray dryer absorber (“SDA”) per boiler. Flue gas from the

economizer passes through the SDA, which uses a lime slurry reagent. The SDA is

designed for 95 percent reduction of hydrochloric acid, or an exit gas concentration of

less than 25 parts per million dry volumetric (ppmdv) at 7% O2; and 90 percent

reduction of SO2 on an hourly basis, or an exit gas concentration of 30 ppmdv at 7%

O2. Each SDA includes a slurry atomizer, support platforms, controls and other

accessories for a complete system. The lime slurry preparation system is common to all

three SDAs and includes a pebble lime silo, two lime slaking systems, a slurry tank and

agitator, two slurry pumps, piping and controls. Aqueous ammonia and hydrated lime

are injected directly into the combustion chamber of each furnace to control nitrogen

oxide and acid gas emissions, respectively. Activated carbon is injected directly into the

gases leaving the boilers for mercury emissions control. The treated gases enter a

fabric filter baghouse for removal of suspended particulate matter. The cleansed air

exits the stack at 305 feet above the ground. The lime silo is designed for five days of

storage capacity at the designed combustion rate. The slurry tank is designed for eight

hours of storage at rated consumption.

2.3.d Ash Residue System

The residue handling system was designed for an expanded facility ash production

resulting from processing 1,600 TPD of combustible waste. Flyash from the

superheater and economizer hoppers is discharged through double dump valves and

conveyed to the flyash conditioner. Flyash from the pollution control equipment is

discharged from hoppers and is also conveyed to the flyash conditioner. Bottom ash is

quenched and discharged by the Martin ash ram discharges. The combined ash

discharges onto a vibrating conveyor. The vibrating conveyor feeds ash onto the grizzly

scalper to remove all pieces larger than 10 inches in size. The large pieces (overs) are



deposited to grade and consist mainly of ferrous metals (large ferrous). Vibrating

conveyors feed the smaller than 10-inch (unders) ash material onto an inclined belt

conveyor, which feeds the small ferrous removal system. Residue from the inclined

conveyor passes under a rotating drum magnet. The ash residue and recovered ferrous

materials are routed into appropriately sized, separate storage areas. Over the

previous ten-year planning period 1.8% of all waste processed at the RRF was ferrous

metals that were separated from the ash and recycled. A non-ferrous recovery system

was installed in 2007 to remove aluminum, copper, brass and other precious metals.

The metals recovered through the ferrous and non-ferrous recovery systems are sold to

recycling markets. The remaining ash is taken to the landfill to be used as daily waste

cover.

2.3.e Facility Performance

The RRF is operated under a Service Agreement between the Authority and Covanta

Lancaster, Inc. (CLI). The current extended term of the Service Agreement expires on

December 31, 2016. Under the Service Agreement, CLI is obligated to operate and

maintain the RRF in accordance with established industry standards. Table 2-1

presents historical data regarding the performance of the Facility compared to the

principal annual guarantees.



Table 2- 1 - RRF Selected Historical Performance Figures1

Year Reference Waste Processing Guarantee

(tons)

Reference Tons Processed

(tons)2

Guaranteed Energy Rate

(kWh/ton)

Actual Energy Rate

(kWh/ton)

2005 372,000 409,121 558 613.6

2006 372,000 400,206 558 606.6

2007 372,000 381,868 558 575.0

2008 372,000 409,074 558 578.6 1: Source: LCSWMA 2: Tons processed after adjustment for HHV of the Combustible Waste

2.3.f Reference Waste Processed

The RRF has been in continuous operation, except for scheduled and unscheduled

maintenance periods, since commercial operation began in May 1991. It is rated at

1,200 TPD of reference waste with the initial capacity guarantee being 372,000 TPY at

5,000 Btu/lb. The Authority reports that the RRF has processed the amount of solid

waste indicated in Table 2-1, as a reference waste basis, over the last four calendar

years.

2.3.g. Estimated Useful Life of the Resource Recovery Facility

The useful life of the RRF and its major subsystems are dependent upon the initial

design and construction of the RRF and proper operation and maintenance of the

equipment. Assuming the RRF continues to be operated and maintained as it is

currently being operated and maintained, and that all required renewals and

replacements are made on a timely basis, the RRF is capable of a useful life of



approximately 35 years from the date of first commercial operation, or until 2026. Thus,

the RRF should have a useful life extending beyond the ten-year Plan Update planning

period.

2.4 FREY FARM LANDFILL

The Frey Farm Landfill (FFLF) is located in Manor Township, Lancaster County,

approximately 17 miles from the City of Lancaster. Material brought to the FFLF for

disposal includes non-processible (at the RRF) MSW, processible MSW (during RRF

unit shutdowns and other periods), C&D waste, wastewater sludge, certain permitted

residual wastes and combined ash residue from the RRF. In 2000, PADEP approved a

minor landfill permit modification to allow the use of ash residue from the RRF as

alternative daily cover.

The FFLF opened in 1989 and encompasses 153 acres, of which 96 acres are

permitted as active fill area and contain five individual landfill cells. The FFLF operates

on a “cap as you go” policy. As areas of waste disposal reach final elevation, they are

covered with relatively impervious soil cover to reduce the infiltration of precipitation and

generation of leachate.

Construction of the first cell of the FFLF began in 1988. The second cell of the FFLF

was constructed in 1990 followed by the third cell in 1992, the fourth cell in 1999, and

the fifth cell in 2003. Currently, cell 5 is open and accepting waste. At the conclusion of

2008, there were approximately 4.29 million cubic yards of permitted air space (40.3

percent) remaining in the FFLF. The final cell, cell number 6, is currently under

construction. The entire FFLF is projected to reach capacity in 2019, based on an

average daily disposal rate of 1,105 TPD and 280 operating days per year. At this time,

the Authority is moving forward with a vertical expansion of the Frey Farm Landfill.

Chapter 3, Section 3.6.b provides information on the vertical expansion.



The FFLF has a permitted daily disposal capacity of 2,000 TPD, but over the previous

ten-year planning period, the Authority utilized only 1,105 TPD of this capacity. The

unused, but permitted, capacity of 895 TPD would allow the Authority to increase solid

waste deliveries to the system, and thus the associated tipping fee revenues, by

250,600 TPY (based on 280 operating days per year), without any modifications to its

existing permits. It should be noted, however, that the Authority has no intention of

increasing deliveries by 895 TPD to reach its permitted daily capacity during this ten-

year planning period. This additional capacity allowance is important to ensure capacity

availability in the event of a disruption at the RRF.

If the amount of wastes generated in the County and residual waste generated outside

of the County, which are directed to the RRF for disposal, exceeds the capacity of the

RRF, then the portion of the in-County waste, above that which can be processed at the

RRF, must be disposed of in the FFLF. During the course of the year, there are

scheduled maintenance outages, including semi-annual outages, required at the RRF.

As a result of these outages, the RRF operates at a reduced capacity and it becomes

necessary to landfill processible waste during the outage periods. Over the previous

ten-year planning period, an average of 33,400 tons per year of processible waste was

delivered to the landfill. This is in addition to the non-processible wastes which are

presently being disposed of in the landfill. Currently, since the RRF is operating at, or

near, its capacity, landfill space is regularly being consumed by excess in-County

processible wastes. Further, if waste generation increases in the future, as expected,

based on projected increases in population, and the capacity of the RRF remains

unchanged, the amount of processible wastes which must be landfilled will increase.

The design of the FFLF meets current Resource Recovery and Conservation Act

(RCRA) Subtitle D requirements and is regulated by the PADEP, which has been

granted primacy by the U.S. EPA under a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”). Current

closure operations of the FFLF therefore have been developed in order to meet U.S.

EPA standards.



2.5 STATUS OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The facilities under the Authority’s direction must be operated in accordance with

applicable regulations, codes, standards, guidelines, policies and laws. The key permits

required to operate the various facilities discussed above are presented in Table 2-2.

Also, the Authority is taking appropriate actions to comply with currently mandated

regulatory requirements which will become applicable in the future.

Table 2- 2 - Status of Permits(1)

Facility/Permit Issuing Entity Status Comments

Transfer Station Operating Permit No.

100009 PADEP, Waste Mgmt. Program

Issued February 23, 2004

Modification to Operating Permit No. 100009 allowing receipt of Residual Waste

PADEP, Waste Mgmt. Program

Issued October 24, 1995

Stormwater Discharge Permit

PADEP, Waste Mgmt. Program

Issued October 27, 2006

Frey Farm Landfill

Operating Permit No. 101389

PADEP, Bureau of Waste Mgmt.

Issued May 27, 1988

As subsequently modified.

Stormwater Discharge Permit

PADEP, Water Mgmt. Program

Issued November 1, 2004

Title V Operating Permit #36-05081

PADEP; Air Quality Program

Issued September 1, 2005

Resource Recovery Facility

Operating Permit No. 400592

PADEP, Bureau of Waste Mgmt.

Issued March 26, 2009

As subsequently modified.

NPDES Permit No. 0083496 – Stormwater Discharge

PADEP, Water Mgmt. Program

Per DEP correspondence no longer required

Title V Operating Permit #36-05013

PADEP, Air Quality Program

August 1, 2005

(1) Source: LCSWMA Staff



2.6 PERMITTED SITES FOR AGRICULTURAL UTILIZATION OF BIOSOLIDS

Chapter 5, Section 5.4, summarizes the current biosolids management system. Land

application of biosolids is common practice and a list of PADEP-permitted land

application sites that are located in Lancaster County appears as Table 5-2.

2.7 OTHER PRIVATE REGIONAL FACILITIES

There are a number of operations in the county accepting and processing C&D waste

materials. The items recycled by these operations include drywall, mixed glass for

aggregate, and clean wood waste. These facilities are described in Chapter 5, Section

5.2 of this Plan Update, as part of the discussion on C&D waste management.



CHAPTER 3 ESTIMATED FUTURE CAPACITY

3.1 FUTURE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS

The data from Chapter 1 of this Plan Update, as well as information obtained from the

March 2009 Dvirka and Bartilucci (D&B) report, was used as a basis for projecting

municipal waste generation figures for the next 10-15 years. This process was used to

determine the waste disposal/processing capacity required by LCSWMA, and to ensure

proper management of all municipal waste generated in the County over the planning

period.

Municipal waste generation is a function of a number of socio-economic factors,

including population. Table 3-1 shows the population projections for Lancaster County

from 2009 through 2025. These population projections were extracted from the March

2009 D&B report. As Table 3-1 illustrates, the County is forecast to have a continued

and steady population growth of approximately 0.75 percent annually, over the next 15

years.



Table 3- 1 - Projected Population Figures for Lancaster County(1)

Year Population

2009 505,969

2010 509,763

2011 513,588

2012 517,439

2013 521,319

2014 525,231

2015 529,170

2016 533,138

2017 537,137

2018 541,165

2019 545,223

2020 549,314

2025 570,223

(1) Source: 2009 D&B Report

The overall increase in Lancaster County’s population from 2009 to 2020 is projected to be approximately 8½ percent.

3.2 FUTURE COUNTY MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS

Table 3-2, at the end of this chapter, shows the annual projected MSW waste generation

and recyclables diversion projections from the County, from 2009 through 2025. These

waste projections are tied to the projected population increases in Table 3-1, and were

developed from information contained in the D&B Report. The recycling projections

calculated in this Chapter 3 were extrapolated based on per capita recyclables

generation rates established in the Report, and from percentage breakdowns of the

recyclables components based on the 2008 LCSWMA Annual Recycling Report.



Lancaster County generates MSW that requires processing and/or disposal in the

LCSWMA system; this in-county waste includes residential/commercial/institutional

waste and C&D waste (after waste diversion and recycling). Table 3-2 projects that the

amount of processible waste requiring processing at the RRF, from in-County

generators, will grow from 311,600 tpy in 2009, to approximately 338,000 tpy in 2020, to

approx. 351,000 tpy by 2025.

The C&D waste projections presented in Table 3-2 were established in the D&B Report.

The Report assumes C&D waste tonnages would initially drop, and then remain steady

over time, due to the current state of the economy and the current decrease in C&D

waste tonnages experienced at a majority of the landfills and transfer stations located in

Pennsylvania. Since C&D waste is not accepted at the RRF as processible waste, the

Report projects that 90,000 tons per year of C&D waste (after diversion and recycling)

will be directed to the Frey Farm Landfill for disposal throughout the planning period.

3.3 OTHER WASTE PROCESSING & DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS OF LCSWMA

In addition to in-county municipal waste, there are several other fractions of waste that

are currently managed, and will continue to be managed, by the LCSWMA solid waste

infrastructure. Table 3-3 tabulates a list of processible waste materials (after recycling)

that are projected by the D&B Report to be brought into LCSWMA’s RRF for processing.

In addition to residential/commercial/institutional waste from in-county sources that are

reflected in Table 3-2, the Report projects a steady 29,500 tpy of in-county processible

residual waste will be delivered to the RRF. Also, a variable tonnage of out-of-county

processible residual waste is projected to continue to come to the RRF, starting at about

42,500 tons in 2009 and declining to about 31,000 tons by 2025. Residual waste

delivered to the Frey Farm Landfill is projected to be 152,615 tons in 2009, decrease to

68,626 in 2015 and decrease to 55,433 tons by 2025.



3.4 IMPACT OF RECYCLING ON FUTURE WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS

Table 3-2, Lancaster County In-County Municipal Waste Generation Projections,

assumes the current level of recycling and waste reduction (approximately 37%) will be

maintained throughout the planning period. In 2008, Lancaster County recycled

approximately 37 percent of the waste stream through public and privately initiated

recycling and waste reduction efforts. If future recycling efforts exceed the 37 percent

rate that is projected over the next 10-15 years, slightly less capacity will be required for

processing/disposal of the balance of Lancaster County’s municipal waste stream than

is noted in Tables 3-2 and 3-3.

3.5 CAPACITY OF TRANSFER STATION TO HANDLE PROJECTED WASTE STREAM

3.5.a Transfer Station Complex

The Transfer Station Complex consists of the main Transfer Station, the Small Vehicle

Drop-Off (SVDO) building, the Household Hazardous Waste Facility (HHW), the

maintenance facility and LCSWMA’s administrative office. The recently upgraded

transfer station complex is capable of handling its waste transfer, recycling, and HHW

processing needs throughout the planning period. The Transfer Station, which is

permitted for 2,200 tons per day, operated at an average of 1,020 tons per day in 2008,

which is 46% of the permitted capacity.

3.5.b Additional Transfer Stations

Over this ten-year planning period, LCSWMA may pursue opportunities or initiate

studies to address longer term disposal and processing needs. To provide for more

efficient transportation of waste originating in the southern and/or eastern parts of the

County, LCSWMA may consider developing additional transfer stations. These satellite

transfer stations would be sited in industrially or commercially zoned parcels close to (or



on) a major travel artery, such as Routes 23, 30, 41, 222, 272 or 322. As the eastern

and southern areas of the County have become more populated in recent decades,

transfer stations have become more viable in these “waste sheds” (also known as

catchment areas as defined in the 1986 Solid Waste Management Plan). The waste

sheds discussed herein differ slightly from the catchment areas discussed in the 1986

Plan. For the purposes of this Plan Update, two waste sheds are defined for potential

satellite transfer stations (illustrated in Figure 3-1):

A. Northeast waste shed – comprised of Adamstown, Denver New Holland

and Terre Hill Boroughs and Brecknock, Caernarvon, East Cocalico, East

Earl and Salisbury Townships

B. South waste shed – comprised of Christiana, Quarryville and Strasburg

Boroughs and Bart, Colerain, Drumore, East Drumore, Eden, Fulton, Little

Britain, Martic, Paradise, Providence, Sadsbury and Strasburg Townships

Constructing satellite transfer facilities would achieve the same goal in these areas of

the County as LCSWMA’s main Transfer Complex does in the central part of the County.

The main goal of the Transfer Complex is the consolidation of waste for more efficient

transportation to the RRF (processible MSW) or FFLF (C/D), depending on the type of

waste. The efficiencies gained through waste consolidation reduce truck traffic while

allowing haulers to minimize travel time between their routes and the disposal facility.

Waste consolidation saves fuel, reduces emissions and reduces collection costs. In

2009, 80,868 incoming loads were received at the Harrisburg Pike Transfer Complex.

LCSWMA hauled 13,994 transfer trailers to either the RRF or FFLF, resulting in an 82%

reduction in truck traffic.

In 2009, 5,631 loads totaling 29,012 tons were delivered to LCSWMA facilities from the

south waste shed, while 4,928 loads totaling 29,247 tons were delivered from the

northeast waste shed. Using a payload of 20 tons per transfer trailer, satellite transfer



facilities would reduce the number of trucks traveling on the major arteries in the south

waste shed from 5,631 to 1,451, or approximately 75% and the northeast waste shed

from 4,928 to 1,462, or approximately 70%. Additionally, these transfer stations would

help to reduce the amount of truck traffic in and around the Transfer Complex on the

Harrisburg Pike. This is one of Lancaster County’s most heavily traveled arteries, with

sections of the roadway carrying over 25,000 vehicles per day, according to the

County’s Long Range Transportation Plan.

Over the 10-year plan period, truck traffic that provides waste collection service in these

areas will increase. According to estimates developed by the Lancaster County

Planning Commission, the population in municipalities that make up the south waste

shed will increase 10% from 2010 to 2020. Similarly, the estimated increase in the

northeast waste shed municipalities is 9%. As these areas see continued population

growth, the truck reduction benefit that can be realized from satellite transfer stations

will become even greater than the 2009 data shows.

If additional transfer stations were located on the perimeter of the County, they could

serve not only haulers and residents of the County located near that facility, but may

also serve waste sheds in the adjacent county should LCSWMA develop cooperative

regional relationships. Such arrangements would provide an avenue to obtaining more

waste that will be necessary over the initial 10 – 15 year period if LCSWMA were to

expand the RRF by the addition of a fourth boiler. Section 3.7.b details the possible

expansion of the RRF. It should be noted that the possibility of developing additional

transfer stations and expansion of the RRF are independent projects and the viability of

one of the projects moving forward may not be contingent on the other. If LCSWMA

decides to pursue the construction of additional transfer stations, public meetings will be

held in that region to gather input from residents and offer information as to the local

benefits of doing so.


Figure 3-1 – Northeast and South Waste Sheds




3.6 CAPACITY OF FREY FARM LANDFILL TO HANDLE PROJECTED WASTE STREAM

3.6.a. Frey Farm Landfill

As explained in Chapter 2, the FFLF is projected to reach capacity by 2019. LCSWMA,

in anticipation of the Frey Farm Landfill reaching capacity in 2019, began exploring

solutions for waste disposal over the course of the past eight years. In 2002, the ARM

Group, Inc, the landfill consultant for LCSWMA, proposed information for consideration

on a Creswell Re-Use Landfill Expansion. In September of 2005, a Preliminary

Engineering Design Report for the Creswell Re-Use Landfill concept was prepared by

the ARM Group. The preliminary report results indicated that the Creswell Re-use

Landfill would add approximately 143 acres to the landfill footprint, with a net capacity of

30.2 million cubic yards of air space. The projected site life of this landfill project was

estimated to be over fifty (50) years. However, due to a much lower capital cost, as well

as DEP’s permitting of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) berms in other similar

expansions in the south central region, LCSWMA is now pursuing a vertical expansion

of the FFLF as explained in the following section.

3.6.b Frey Farm Landfill Expansion

In April of 2008, the Authority began exploring a vertical expansion of the current Frey

Farm Landfill as a possible expansion alternative. The Frey Farm Landfill vertical

expansion (FFLF VE) utilizes the existing FFLF permit and disposal site, without

causing interruption to its current operations. The FFLF VE would employ an MSE

berm around the perimeter of the landfill footprint. The MSE berm would enable the

Authority to establish an effective capacity increase without a substantial liner footprint

increase or setback conflicts. The FFLF VE project would add about 10 million cubic



yards of disposal capacity at the landfill, would achieve a 20+ year extension to the site

life at the FFLF, and would allow the Authority to extend landfill operations at that site

until (approximately) 2042.

The FFLF VE would add approximately 16 acres of additional liner system, but would

utilize the existing landfill footprint and liner system. A FFLF expansion project was

initially considered circa 2000, but MSE berms were not permitted in the Southcentral

region of PADEP at the time as a use for landfill berms. Since 2002, multiple MSE

berms have been, or will be, constructed in central Pennsylvania.

Both the Creswell Re-Use Landfill Expansion and the FFLF VE are technically feasible,

environmentally sound and economically feasible design considerations for the

Authority. The Authority has decided to pursue the FFLF VE because the capital costs

at years 5, 10, 15 and 20 of the landfill expansion project, as well as the per-cubic-yard

costs are less than with the Creswell Re-Use Landfill Expansion project. The FFLF VE

expansion will allow the Authority to continue operation with no operational downtime

during construction. The FFLF VE will allow the Authority to gain disposal capacity

needed throughout the ten-year planning period (and longer) for disposal of ash residue

from the RRF, bypassed processible MSW, biosolids, certain permitted residual wastes

and C&D waste generated in the County.

3.7 CAPACITY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY TO HANDLE PROJECTED WASTE

STREAM

3.7.a. Resource Recovery Facility

Table 3-3 illustrates the quantities of waste that will require disposal at the RRF. These

waste sources are from in-county processible MSW (residential, commercial, and

institutional), in-county processible residual waste, and out-of-county processible

residual waste.



The capability of LCSWMA’s RRF to meet all of its demands and handle all available

incoming processible waste over the next 10-15 years is a function of several factors.

First, the 1,200 TPD RRF facility is contractually guaranteed (by its operator) to be

“available” for operation 85 percent of the year. That is, it may be unavailable for up to

15 percent of the year due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance and other

events. Second, the facility was designed (and its boilers sized) to process waste with

an average higher heating value (HHV) of 5,000 Btu/pound. The waste currently

processed by the RRF averages about 5,500 Btu/pound, thereby restricting its tonnage

throughput capacity (due to the design boiler limits). The combination of these two

factors results in a projected annual processing availability “limit” at the RRF of

approximately 355,000 tons per year of processible waste. In comparison with the

Table 3-3 projections of processible waste that will be brought to the RRF over the

planning period, the current RRF is inadequate to process all of this waste, without

further modification.

Details of a possible modification to the RRF were examined, and are discussed in the

following section. It is noted that, if the RRF is expanded, the D&B Report also

recommends attracting additional out-of-county residential/commercial/institutional

waste to the RRF for processing, to optimize operations and spread capital and

operating costs over additional tons. These additional waste tonnages are not included

in Table 3-3.

3.7.b. Resource Recovery Facility Expansion

The RRF currently processes waste in three 400 ton-per-day waste combustors. In

order to evaluate the appropriateness of expanding the RRF based on the current and

projected processible waste generation rates, the potential benefits associated with

conserving landfill space, and the economic feasibility of the expansion, the Authority

hired D&B to evaluate and compare two (2) alternatives – a base case in which the RRF



would not be expanded, and a scenario in which the RRF would be expanded by adding

a 600 ton-per-day solid waste combustor. The expansion option would increase the

capacity of the RRF from a nominal processing rate of 1,200 tons per day to a rate of

1,800 tons per day. The Dvirka and Bartilucci March 2009 Executive Summary of this

study is attached as Appendix I of this Plan Update. The paragraphs below summarize

the findings and recommendations of the D&B Report.

3.7.c. Facility Expansion Design Concept

The RRF expansion design concept would include an additional combustion unit based

on a Martin GMbH-design combustion system, including a charging hopper, feed chute,

feed ram, stoker assembly, and an ash discharger. The additional steam generated

from the new unit would be sent to a new dedicated turbine generator. The Air Pollution

Control (APC) system would consist of a new scrubber reactor and associated

equipment, a new baghouse and associated equipment, and a new induced draft fan,

exhausting to the spare flue which is currently in place in the RRF exhaust stack.

Although detailed design requirements were not required for the D&B Report, it is

currently envisioned that the following building, site, equipment and system

modifications, or additions would be included as part of the RRF expansion:

The Boiler Building would be expanded to the west, adding a 50-foot x 100-foot

enclosure to the existing Boiler Building.

Modifications of existing columns and stairwells, to address interferences with the

new feed chute and to accommodate the increased width of the new furnace,

may be required.

A new Turbine Generator Building, approximately 70 feet x 45 feet, would be

constructed to enclose the new turbine generator, auxiliary equipment, and boiler

feedwater train equipment. The added Turbine Generator Building would be



located adjacent to the existing Turbine Building, extending south between the

switchyard and existing air pollution control equipment.

A new APC train located south of the new Boiler Building expansion would be

constructed. The orientation of the new APC train may be offset or angled so as

to avoid interference with the existing Residue Building, which has been

expanded to accommodate a new non-ferrous recovery system.

3.7.d. Combustion Unit and Air Pollution Control Train

If added, the new combustion unit will most likely have four (4) grate runs with thirteen

(13) steps per run. The approximate width of the new grate will be 29-feet 6-inches.

The boiler and steam generator would be similar to the existing units, having a multi-

pass, waterwall combustion chamber with evaporator, superheater, and economizer

heat recovery sections. It is anticipated that the furnace dimensions from the charging

chute to the economizer section rear wall would be sized to fit within the existing Boiler

Building column lines.

The existing RRF acid gas scrubbing system includes a reactor vessel for each unit and

a common lime slurry preparation system. A new reactor acid gas scrubbing train

would be dedicated to the new combustion unit. A new reactor vessel would be added.

The existing lime slurry preparation system would be modified to ensure production of

the required quantities of lime slurry to support four (4) units.

The existing RRF has individual baghouses dedicated to each unit. The baghouses

include multi-modules, a bag cleaning system with controls, compartment isolation

system, and fly ash hoppers. A new baghouse would be constructed similar to the

existing baghouse units.

The existing RRF exhaust stack includes four (4) insulated flues. One (1) of the existing

flues would be dedicated to the new combustion unit.



3.7.e Other Equipment and Systems

The existing waste storage pit is sized for four (4) combustion units.

There are two (2) existing traveling overhead bridge cranes and one (1) crane

pulpit. The bridge cranes were originally designed to handle 1,600 tons per day

to accommodate a future expansion of the RRF. Since the expansion being

contemplated would increase the RRF capacity to 1,800 tons per day, a third

crane would be required and a second crane pulpit would likely be required. The

cranes would be upgraded with new components, including festoon replacement,

trolley replacement, and new regenerative crane drives.

The two (2) existing 60-ton truck scales are sufficient for weighing the additional

trucks resulting from the expansion.

The force main from the remote pump house is sized to handle the expansion,

although the pumps will require replacement with larger capacity models.

A new turbine and generator, with all required support and auxiliary equipment,

including surface condenser, turbine lube oil system, valves and controls, etc.

would be required. The new turbine and generator would be dedicated to the

steam production from the new combustion unit.

The existing reverse osmosis boiler feedwater treatment system would need to

be expanded.

The existing bottom ash conveyor may need to be modified in order to handle the

additional ash from the fourth unit.

Air pollution control support equipment, such as slurry pumps and slakers,

aqueous ammonia system components, and activated carbon system

components would have to be upgraded or expanded to handle the additional

demands of the fourth air pollution control train equipment.



The Facility’s Distributed Control System (DCS) would require expansion.

However, the existing DCS technology is dated and replacement of the entire

system with current technology may be recommended.

The boiler feedwater system components would require increased capacity.

Replacement of equipment or additions to existing equipment to add capacity

would be required. This includes equipment, such as the deaerator, the

feedwater heater, and boiler feed pumps, for example.

Expansion of the Facility’s air compressors would be required to support the

additional compressed air load requirements.

A new dump condenser would be required to provide bypass capacity for steam

generated by the fourth combustion unit when necessary.

The main cooling tower would require expansion, which would likely include a

new cell. The existing cooling tower has been reported to be capacity-limited in

the summer. Capacity additions above the requirements for the new unit are

likely, such as the expansion of one (1) of the existing cooling tower cells.

The RRF Water Treatment Plant would require expansion, including expanded

capacity of the Lamella clarifier, floc tanks, clearwell pumps, and miscellaneous

equipment. Replacement of equipment may require water treatment building

modifications, including the possible raising of the roof height to accommodate a

new clarifier.

3.7.f Expansion Project Timeline and Capital Expenses

It is assumed that the expanded RRF project would be completed and operations would

begin January 2015. Project financing would begin in January of 2013 with engineering,

design and permitting taking place between January of 2011 and June of 2013.



Based on a similar project in Hillsborough County, Florida, the estimated baseline

project cost for the RRF expansion is approximately $128 million (2007 basis). D&B,

using a computer model, simulated the project cost inflation between the years 2007

and 2014. D&B assumed a one (1) percent annual increase in 2009 and 2010, and

three (3) percent annual increases in 2011 through 2014. Based on these estimated

annual inflation rates in overall construction costs for the RRF, the expansion cost is

approximately $161.1 million (2014 basis), not including costs associated with financing.

3.7.g Impacts of Expansion

If LCSWMA decides to expand the RRF, its Integrated System would be positively

impacted. First, an expanded RRF would minimize the amount of waste bypassed to

the Frey Farm Landfill as the population of Lancaster County continues to grow. This is

consistent with the goals of the System to process for energy recovery post-recycling

waste rather than landfilling. Processible waste bypassed to FFLF is projected to be

398,027 tons (Table 3-3) over the 10 year plan period. If an RRF expansion were to go

on-line beginning in January 2015, essentially all the processible waste that is projected

to be bypassed to the FFLF for the second half of the planning period (and beyond)

could be processed at the RRF. Processing this waste at the RRF, rather than

bypassing to the FFLF, would extend the life of the FFLF by approximately one year.

Secondly, as the boiler units at the RRF age, they will likely experience a trending

decrease in availability. In January 2015, the possible start-up date of the fourth boiler,

the existing boiler units would be almost 25 years old. As these boilers continue to age,

the costs and time associated with maintenance will continue to increase and there will

be greater potential for significant downtime. In contrast, a new boiler will operate much

more efficiently with minimal maintenance required. The dependability of a new unit



offers capacity assurance over the next 20 years for waste-to-energy processing, rather

than landfilling waste as the boilers continue to age and experience greater downtime.

Finally, with the addition of a 600 TPD boiler, LCSWMA would increase its renewable

energy generation at the RRF by 20 megawatts, bringing the total site production to 56

megawatts. The additional 20 megawatts is enough to power approximately 20,000

homes, equivalent to every home in Lancaster City. It is important to note that the

additional renewable energy generated through the addition of a fourth boiler will be

achieved without accelerating landfill consumption since the ash that’s produced will be

utilized as daily waste cover at the FFLF, just as the ash currently being produced from

the combustion of waste is used.

The importation of out-of-county waste would have a very minimal negative impact from

a planning standpoint. The transportation of this waste to the RRF would create an

estimated 30 truck trips per day (30 trucks carrying 20 tons each). These trucks would

travel on the major arteries to supply waste to the RRF. With the volume of truck traffic

that currently use these routes, the impact on transportation is negligible. For example,

the transfer of waste would very likely involve Route 30. According the Long Range

Transportation Plan, all sections of Route 30 carry at least 15,000 vehicles per day (and

most sections of the roadway carry over 25,000 vehicles). Adding 30 trucks would

increase traffic by less than one quarter of one percent. Route 441 where the RRF is

located, carries at least 5,000 vehicles per day on all sections. Thirty additional trucks

would equate to an increase in traffic of just over one half of one percent.

This waste may or may not be transported from the additional transfer station(s) that

may be constructed, which are detailed in Section 3.5.b. If the waste is transported

from these additional transfer stations, traffic would be minimally increased as

mentioned in the section above, while being greatly improved in the northeast and south



waste sheds, as well as in and around LCSWMA’s Transfer Complex on the Harrisburg

Pike.

Prior to the RRF expansion project moving forward, LCSWMA will hold numerous public

meetings to provide a forum for public comment on the details of RRF expansion. At

least one meeting will be held in the host municipality (Conoy Township) and others will

be held in other parts of the County. LCSWMA will only make a final decision after the

public. meetings are completed.

3.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to processible waste projections referenced above, the currently available

processible waste that is projected to be delivered to the RRF is greater than the current

capacity of the RRF to process that waste. The gap between the available waste and

the RRF capacity is projected to increase in the future, accelerating consumption of

landfill capacity.

The expansion of the RRF from a 1,200 ton-per-day nominal processing rate to a 1,800

ton-per-day nominal processing rate initially appears to be economically feasible, as

reported in the D&B Report. However, the feasibility is largely dependent on the ability

of the Authority to obtain sufficient quantities of waste from out-of-county sources to

supplement current in-County sources, so that the expanded RRF capacity would be

fully utilized. The economic feasibility of the RRF expansion is also dependent on the

ability to attract such waste at prices that will offset the additional capital and operating

costs associated with the expansion.



In order to provide for more efficient transportation of waste originating in the southern

and eastern parts of the County, and/or optimize the utilization of an expanded RRF, the

Authority may consider developing one or more satellite transfer stations. The new

transfer station(s) would improve transportation efficiencies through the consolidation of

waste. Additionally, if these transfer stations were located on the perimeter of the

County, they could also serve to provide waste from the adjoining county to more fully

utilize an expanded RRF.

Based on the assumptions used for future tipping fees, and the assumptions regarding

delivery of additional waste needed to fill the RRF’s expanded capacity, it is projected in

the D&B Report that the expanded RRF should have sufficient operating revenues to

meet the added capital and operating expenses of the expanded RRF.

As noted in Chapter 2, at the current fill rate of 1,105 tons per day, the remaining

available disposal capacity in the currently permitted cells of the Frey Farm Landfill is

expected to be filled by 2019. The expansion of the RRF would have a direct impact on

the landfill consumption, in that all County-generated processible wastes, which include

all of the residential, commercial and institutional waste generated in the County, would

be processed at the RRF, and there would be little, if any, processible waste requiring

landfilling. The benefits of reducing the quantity of wastes landfilled include an

extension of landfill cell operating life, the additional generation of renewable energy

from waste that would otherwise be landfilled, the economic benefits associated with

longer periods between required cell construction, and environmental benefits of

reduced quantities of waste landfilled. It is projected that if the RRF is expanded with

the addition of a 600 ton per day unit by 2015, the life of the Frey Farm Landfill would be

extended by approximately one (1) year, and any future landfill expansions would also

see extended life due to increased processible waste diversion to the RRF.



Still, there is a need for expansion to the landfill disposal capabilities of LCSWMA, to

accept ash residue from the RRF, biosolids, certain permitted residual wastes and C&D

waste generated in the County. There is also a need for landfill capacity for disposal of

processible waste, for times when the RRF is unavailable, or when it cannot process all

processible waste that needs to be handled. The proposed Frey Farm Landfill Vertical

Expansion Project (FFLF VE) will be developed by the Authority, and will provide landfill

disposal capacity to meet all of LCSWMA’s needs throughout the planning period

and longer (estimated to be beyond year 2040). Given the long lead times required to

develop and construct such a project, initial planning work has commenced on the FFLF

VE.


Table 3- 2 - In-County Municipal Waste Generation Projections

Waste Type

Year

2007

(Historic)

2008

(Historic)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2025

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Total MSW Generated4

592,107

594,540

590,255

595,576

598,732

601,908

605,105

608,968

612,860

616,781

620,732

624,713

628,724

632,764

653,425

Recyclables3

Newsprint

5,709

4,730

4,852 4,904 4,935 4,966 4,997 5,034 5,072 5,110 5,148 5,187 5,226 5,265 5,465 Other Paper

34,247

28,411

29,015 29,323 29,506 29,691 29,876 30,100 30,326 30,553 30,782 31,013 31,246 31,480 32,679

Office Paper

3,056

2,835

2,901 2,932 2,951 2,969 2,988 3,010 3,033 3,055 3,078 3,101 3,125 3,148 3,268 Corrugated Cardboard

47,687

43,599

44,723 45,199 45,481 45,765 46,050 46,396 46,744 47,094 47,447 47,803 48,162 48,523 50,370

Commingled

Containers

19,236

21,239

28,314

28,616

28,794

28,974

29,155

29,374

29,594

29,816

30,039

30,265

30,492

30,720

31,890

Plastics

1,734

1,154

1,151 1,163 1,170 1,177 1,185 1,194 1,203 1,212 1,221 1,230 1,239 1,248 1,296 Const. C&D Materials

4,858

6,371

5,003 5,056 5,087 5,119 5,151 5,190 5,229 5,268 5,307 5,347 5,387 5,428 5,634 Other Materials

76,092

75,962

72,696 72,877 73,571 74,271 74,977 75,539 76,105 76,676 77,252 77,831 78,415 79,003 82,010 Subtotal Recyclables2,4

187,760

184,301

188,655

190,069

191,495

192,931

194,378

195,836

197,304

198,784

200,275

201,777

203,291

204,815

212,612

C&D Waste, to Landfill4

85,737

97,591 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000




In-County MSW Tons Remaining for Processing4,5

318,610

312,648 311,600 315,507 317,237 318,977 320,727 323,132 325,556 327,997 330,457 332,936 335,433 337,949 350,813

County Population4

498,465

502,203

505,969

509,763

513,588

517,439

521,319

525,231

529,170

533,138

537,137

541,165

545,223

549,314

570,223

Percent Recycling1,4

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

37%

1: Percent Recycling does not include C&D materials. 2: Subtotal Recyclables was calculated by dividing the County Population figures into two separate groups; Mandated and Non-Mandated municipality populations. The non-mandated municipalities’ populations were multiplied by a per capita rate of 0.05 tons per capita per year. The mandated municipalities’ populations were multiplied by a per capita rate of 0.13 tons per capita per year. These values were added together to get the projections for the Subtotal Recyclables for years 2010 through 2025. The populations for both groups were calculated using the population projections from the D&B report as well as the populations for the Mandated and Non-Mandated municipalities listed in the D&B report. 3: Recyclables: (Tons of (Recyclable) Material/184,301 tons)*100=% of (Recyclable) Material, Recyclables Projection = Subtotal Recyclables*% of (Recyclable) Material, Additional tonnages were added based on the separation of single stream/commingled materials. LCSWMA provided B&L with the percentage breakdown for the single stream/commingled recyclables waste stream. B&L used these percentages and the Subtotal Recyclables Projections to establish additional tonnages for certain recyclables waste streams. As mentioned previously, the additional tonnages were added to the Recyclables Projection to establish a Recyclables Tonnage for all listed materials.

4: From D&B Report Projections.

5: Represents in-County processible residential, commercial, and institutional waste after recycling, and after C&D recycling and waste diversion to landfill.



Table 3- 3 - Projected Processible Waste Deliveries to LCSWMA RRF(1)

Waste Type

Year

2007 (Historic)

2008

(Historic)

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2025

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

Tons

In-County MSW Tons Remaining for Processing1,2

318,610

312,648 311,600 315,507 317,237 318,977 320,727 323,132 325,556 327,997 330,457 332,936 335,433 337,949 350,813

In-County Generated Processible Residual Waste

33,126 36,819 30,000 30,000 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500 29,500

Out-of-County Residual Waste to RRF

43,373 45,615 42,440 41,591 40,759 39,944 39,145 38,362 37,595 36,843 36,106 35,384 34,677 33,983 30,718

Total Processible Waste to RRF

384,040 387,098 387,497 388,421 389,372 390,995 392,651 394,341 396,064 397,820 399,609 401,432 411,031

RRF Capacity at Average HHV and Avg. Boiler Availability

362,500 350,400 350,400 351,360 350,400 350,400 354,382 355,353 354,382 354,382 354,382 355,353 354,382

Processible Waste Deliveries in Excess of Current RRF Capacity

21,540 36,698 37,097 37,061 38,972 40,595 38,269 38,988 41,682 43,438 45,227 46,079 56,649

1: All values taken from or extrapolated from March 2009 D&B Report Projections.

2: Represents in-County processible residential, commercial, and institutional waste after recycling, and after C&D recycling and waste diversion to landfill. Values taken from Table 3-2. Note: To evaluate the need for a fourth combustion unit at the RRF, no out-of-county refuse (processible residential/commercial/institutional waste) delivered to the RRF were assumed.



CHAPTER 4 DESCRIPTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS

This chapter describes the recycling activities taking place in Lancaster County and the

impact of recycling on the amount of municipal waste requiring disposal/processing

capacity.

4.1 POTENTIAL RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IN THE MUNICIPAL WASTE STREAM

In 2008, approximately 37% of the municipal waste stream was recycled in Lancaster

County. An examination of data from a recent (2003) statewide waste composition

study conducted in Pennsylvania, for which one of the sorting sites was the RRF,

suggests that of the remaining municipal waste currently being combusted/ disposed of

at LCSWMA facilities, there is additional discarded waste that could potentially be

recycled. However, there are many factors that determine which materials are actually

removed from the waste stream. These factors include but are not limited to:

availability of markets for the materials; economics of a recovery system; competing

options; the percentage of people that participate in recycling; how easily the materials

can be segregated for recovery; and how efficient people are in diverting the materials

for recycling. Table 4-1 presents an estimate of the current composition of the

discarded municipal waste stream (after source separation) by material (from best

available data), as well as an estimate of the potential remaining tons of recyclables that

may still be available for recovery in the discarded waste stream.

4.2 EXISTING MATERIAL RECOVERY OPERATIONS

In the past ten years, municipalities and businesses in Lancaster County have made

great strides in reducing the amount of municipal waste requiring disposal. Forty-four

(44) of the County’s 60 municipalities have implemented curbside recycling collection



programs and three (3) municipalities have drop-off recycling centers. Thirteen

municipalities have no municipally managed recycling program, but one (1) of these

municipalities without a recycling program has a LCSWMA recycling drop-off site within

its borders. Likewise, businesses and institutions have developed programs to divert

materials from the waste stream. Collectively, the efforts have resulted in an increased

recycling rate from 32 percent in 1998 to 37 percent in 2008. Table 4-2 compares the

remaining quantities of recyclable materials reasonably available in the waste stream to

the quantities of recyclable materials currently recovered in 2008 (that make up the

current 37 percent recovery rate). The total amount of recyclables recovered in 2008

was 177,930 tons (net of C&D recycling). In addition, the RRF has a ferrous and non-

ferrous materials recovery system as part of its ash processing, which captures most

metals that are not source-separated from the waste stream prior to combustion. As

Table 4-2 shows, over 85 percent of the available recyclables in municipal waste that is

generated in Lancaster County is currently being recycled.



Table 4- 1 - Recyclable Materials Available in Lancaster County's Municipal Waste Stream in 2008

Material Categories Mean

Composition1 Est. Tons of Material

in Discarded

MSW2

Estimated Recycling

Participation Rate

(%)

Estimated Recycling Separation Efficiency

(%)

Potential Effective Capture

Rate3

(%)

Estimated Additional Accessible Recyclable

Tons in MSW4

Paper

Paper – Total 36.2%

Newspaper 3.8% 11,526 80 70 56 6,455

Corrugated Cardboard

9.6% 29,119 50 50 25 7,280

Office 5.0% 15,166 25 75 19 2,844

Magazine/Glossy 3.3% 10,010 0 70 0 0

Polycoated/Aseptic Containers

0.7%

Mixed Paper 4.7% 14,256 5 70 4 499

Non-Recyclable Paper

9.1%

Plastic

Plastic – Total 12.3%

#1 PET Bottles 1.1% 3,337 75 50 38 1,251

#2 HDPE Bottles 0.7% 2,123 75 50 38 796

#3-#7 Bottles 0.4%

Expanded Polystyrene

1.0%

Film Plastic 4.6%

Other Rigid Plastic

4.5%

Glass

Glass – Total 4.7%

Clear Glass 1.8% 5,460 50 75 38 2,048

Green Glass 0.9% 2,730 50 75 38 1,024

Amber Glass 1.3% 3,943 50 75 38 1,479

Non-recyclable Glass

0.7%



Table 4-1 Recyclable Materials Available in Lancaster County's Municipal Waste Stream in 2008 Continued

Material Categories

Mean Composition1

Est. Tons of Material

in Discarded

MSW2

Estimated Recycling

Participation Rate

(%)

Estimated Recycling Separation Efficiency

(%)

Potential Effective Capture

Rate3

(%)


Tons in MSW4

Metals

Metals – Total 6.0%

Steel Cans 1.0% 3,033(5) 85 80 68 2,062(5)

Aluminum Cans 0.8% 2,427(5) 85 90 77 1,869(5)

Other Ferrous 3.0% 9,100(5) 80 75 60 5,460(5)

Other Aluminum 0.6% 1,820(5) 10 75 8 146(5)

Other Non-Ferrous 0.6% 1,820(5) 5 30 2 36(5)

Organics

Organics – Total 33.4%

Yard Waste-Grass 0.9% 2,730 10 50 5 136

Yard Waste-Other 6.0% 18,199 50 50 25 4,550

Wood-Unpainted 6.6% 20,019 50 10 5 1,001

Food Waste 11.5% 34,882 0 50 0 0

Textiles 3.7% 11,223 5 30 2 224

Diapers 2.0%

Fines 1.1%

Other Organics 1.6%

Other Inorganics

Inorganics - Total 7.4%

Electronics 2.1% 6,370 30 50 15 956

Carpet 1.5%

HHW 0.4% 1,213 10 50 5 61

Other Inorganics 1.6%

Furniture 1.8%

Total 100% 210,506 30,604(5)



Table 4-1 Recyclable Materials Available in Lancaster County's Municipal Waste Stream in 2008 Continued

1: Mean Composition based on Table 5: Southcentral Region Aggregate Landfilled MSW Composition Detail (Weight Percent) from the April 2003 R.W. Beck/PA DEP Statewide Waste Composition Study. Percentages adjusted to remove C&D waste.

2: Estimated tons of materials in discarded MSW based on 2008 total MSW tonnages, without C&D. All tonnages based on 2008 Lancaster County Waste Disposal and Recycling Summary.

3: Capture Rate is based on participation rate and separation efficiency.

4: Estimated Additional Recyclable Tons in MSW based on MSW tonnage of 303,319, as well as the respective Capture Rate Percentages.

5: Note – LCSWMA’s RRF has a ferrous and non-ferrous recovery system in operation to process its combustion ash. For all processible waste burned in the RRF, most of the metals in the processed waste that remain in the ash are captured and recycled under the current system. Therefore, the “Estimated Additional Accessible Recyclable Tons in MSW” total does not include additional potential recyclable metals in the waste stream, as they are already being recycled.



Table 4- 2 - Actual vs. Estimated Available Quantities of Recyclable Materials Recovered in 2008

Material Actual Tons

Currently Recycled1

Actual Percent of Total

MSW Currently Recycled


Tons in MSW (from

Table 4-1)

Total Est.

Lancaster County

Recyclables Available

Percent of Total Recyclables

in MSW (Current Recycling

Plus Est. Remaining Accessible

Recyclables )

Commingled 21,239 4.4% 6,5986 27,8376 5.8%6

Newsprint 4,730 1.0% 6,455 11,185 2.3%

Cardboard 43,599 9.1% 7,280 50,879 10.6%

Paper 31,246 6.5% 3,343 34,589 7.2%

Yard Waste 30,223 6.3% 4,686 34,909 7.2%

Appliances 897 0.2% 897 0.2%

Tires 9,791 2.0% 9,791 2.0%

Metals 10,567 2.2% (6) 10,5676 2.2%6

Wood 22,668 4.7% 1,001 23,669 4.9%

Plastics 1,154 0.2% 1,154 0.2%

Other4 1,816 0.4% 1,241 3,057 0.6%

Totals 177,930 37%3 30,604 208,5346 43%5,6 1: Based on the 2008 Lancaster County Waste Disposal and Recycling Summary (184,301-6,371(C&D recycling)) = 177,930.

2: Note – For all processible waste burned in the RRF, most of the metals in the processed waste that remain in the ash are

captured and recycled under the current system.

3: Actual Percent = (184,301 (recyclables tonnage) - 6,371(C&D recycled))/ (400,910 (MSW disposed) - 97,591(C&D disposed)

+(184,301-6,371 (recyclables, net of C&D recovered))) = 177,930/ 481,249 = 37%. Percentages are rounded.

4: Other material includes Textiles, Electronics, and HHW.

5: Total MSW = 303,319 (See Note 3) + 177,930 (See Note 1) = 481,249. Percentages are rounded.

6: Note – The “Estimated Additional Accessible Recyclable Tons in MSW” in Table 4-2 do not include additional ferrous and non-

ferrous metals in the discarded waste stream, as they are already being recycled via the RRF ash recovery system.



4.3 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL RECYCLING PROGRAMS

Table 4-6, located at the end of this chapter, lists each of the County’s municipalities, the

type of residential recycling program used and the materials collected by the program.

Materials collected by the various recycling programs in the County are generally

delivered to one of seven privately owned and operated material recovery facilities

(MRFs). Table 4-4 lists the name, address, and telephone number for each of the MRFs

that accept recyclable materials for processing and marketing.

Lancaster County municipalities, with technical assistance from LCSWMA, have also

made efforts to collect and recycle yard waste materials such as leaves, grass, brush

and tree trimmings, and Christmas trees. Residents and private haulers dispose of the

yard waste at one of eight municipal sites or three private composting sites and several

farms. Table 4-5 summarizes the yard waste facilities in the County and the

municipalities that use these facilities to manage their materials.

Additionally, LCSWMA has assisted Columbia Borough in developing a pilot food waste

composting program at their municipal yard waste site. Food waste makes up an estimated

12% of total MSW (Table 4-1) and a significantly larger portion of the waste stream of some

non-residential establishments, such as schools, grocery stores and restaurants. This

material contains significant moisture content so when it is properly incorporated into

compost piles consisting of leaves and other yard wastes, it speeds up the composting

process and enhances the final product. The Borough collects food waste from facilities in

their school district, a local-owned grocery store, and several restaurants. Although the

economics of collection of this material make it difficult to divert from the waste stream, as

businesses and institutions continue to look to lower disposal costs, the infrastructure could

develop to make food waste economically feasible to divert. Columbia charges a tip fee for

food waste that is much less than the tip fee that the business/institution would have to pay

to dispose of the material with the rest of their waste. The tip fee that Columbia charges

mostly covers the cost of collection and processing, helping to make their composting

program sustainable. LCSWMA assisted Columbia Borough with grant applications,



securing permits, and other technical assistance related to the development of this pilot

project. Over the 10 year planning period, LCSWMA will provide other municipalities and

private facilities with technical assistance to develop food waste composting programs

modeled after Columbia Borough’s pilot program. LCSWMA will also monitor new

technology and composting methods for application at yard waste sites throughout the

County.

4.4 BENEFITS OF RECYCLING

B&L performed a Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) computer model evaluation

(which is a modified version of EPA’s WARM model, which estimates the impacts and

benefits of recycling activities on our environment) based on LCSWMA’s 2008 Recycling

Report Summary. The NERC model calculates various savings based on the tonnages

of materials recycled. Appendix J contains the graphs and tables of the NERC model

evaluation.

The County’s 2008 total recycling efforts were the equivalent of the following estimated

savings and reductions:

A net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 94,300 metric tons of carbon

equivalent (MTCE);

A reduction in the net energy consumption by 1,637,800 million BTUs (British

Thermal Units);

A reduction in oil consumption by 282,400 barrels of oil;

A reduction in gas consumption of 13,182,400 gallons;

A reduction of 23,700 average passenger cars on the road per year (based on

the equivalent amount of energy and fuel used by a passenger car each year and

the average C02 emissions released by a passenger car per year);

A reduction of car emissions by 129,200 CO2 tons per year;



Table 4-3 shows the annual energy consumption estimates of various energy sources

and the equivalent energy saved through Lancaster County’s recycling efforts in 2008.

Table 4- 3 - Estimated Energy Savings Based on Total Tons Recycled By

Lancaster County in 2008

Energy Source

Annual Energy Consumed

(million BTU’s)

% Savings through

Recycling

Savings through Recycling

(million BTU’s)

Petroleum 1,475,000,000 0.11 1,622,500

Natural gas 685,500,000 0.24 1,645,200

Coal 1,501,100,000 0.11 1,651,210

Hydroelectric 28,200,000 5.81 1,638,420

Nuclear 785,700,000 0.21 1,649,970

Total 4,475,500,000 6.48 8,207,300

The NERC model also calculates savings based on the recyclables contained in a

typical curbside collection container. The items NERC includes in this evaluation are

aluminum cans, steel cans, glass, HDPE, LDPE, PET, corrugated cardboard,

magazines and third class mail, newspapers, office paper, phonebooks, textbooks,

mixed paper, mixed plastics, and mixed recyclables. The County’s 2008 recycling

efforts, based solely on the items found in a typical curbside collection container, were

the equivalent of the following savings and reductions:

A net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 72,300 MTCE;

A reduction in the net energy consumption by 1,039,800 million BTUs;

A reduction in oil consumption by 179,300 barrels of oil;

A reduction in gas consumption of 8,369,200 gallons;

A reduction of 15,000 average passenger cars on the road per year;



A reduction of car emissions by 82,000 CO2 tons per year;

Table 4- 4 - Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) That Process Commingled, Single Stream and Source Separated Recyclables Serving Lancaster County

Penn Waste Republic Services Good’s Disposal Service 85 Brick Yard Road 370 South Henderson Road 4361 Oregon Pike Manchester, PA 17345 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Ephrata, PA 17522 (717) 767-4456 (610) 265-8941 (717) 859-1879 Blue Mountain Recycling Blue Mountain Recycling Recycle America 2904 Ellsworth Street 1350 Bethlehem Pike #6 4555 Mount Pisgah Road Philadelphia, PA 19146 Montgomeryville, PA 18936 York, PA 17402 (215) 462-7372 (215) 540-9506 (717) 246-0262 Shell’s Recycling Center 640 South Franklin Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 394-6640

4.5 MEETING AND EXCEEDING 35 PERCENT RECYCLING GOAL

Upon reaching the 25 percent recycling goal specified in Act 101 in 1997, the

Governor’s Office established a new goal of 35 percent recycling to be achieved by

2003. Lancaster County reached a recycling rate of 35 percent in 2003, which has

continued to increase to 37 percent by 2008.

In an effort to reach the new goal, the Authority focused on strategies designed to

expand or supplement existing recycling programs and improve current data collection

efforts. The Authority expanded their recycling programs such as the HHW collection

program. Furthermore, the Authority provided assistance to municipalities developing or

expanding programs such as additional yard waste collection (woody materials).

It needs to be noted that a recent development in the county will affect negatively affect

recycling tonnages. In June 2009, Lancaster Newspapers halted publishing of an

afternoon newspaper. When combined with a trend of residents migrating from

receiving a newspaper to reading the news on-line, recycled newspaper tonnages can



be expected to decrease dramatically. Additionally, a trend in packaging is occurring,

away from heavier glass and metal containers to lighter, thinner-walled plastics and

aluminum. This is a positive trend in source (tonnage) reduction, but also results in a

lighter tonnage (and therefore, lower weight-based “percent recycled” tonnage) being

recycled. Thus, the actual “percent recycled” rate (i.e. 37) is becoming of less

importance than just taking steps to optimize recycling, where practical. Even

maintaining a 37% recycling rate over time may require increased recycling of lighter

materials.

Currently, 13 of the County’s 60 municipalities do not have a recycling program in place.

One strategy to further boost diversion is to encourage these municipalities to

implement recycling programs. The Authority will provide technical assistance to help

these municipalities if they choose to initiate drop-off programs or, if there is sufficient

interest, curbside collection programs.

Businesses and institutions can be encouraged to reassess their efforts and expand

recycling programs where it is economically feasible. Such entities, that are located in

municipalities both where recycling is or is not mandated, can still be encouraged to

implement programs where it makes economic business sense. Additionally, the

Authority will look for ways to continue to improve recycling data collection to include

this additional tonnage. One method under consideration is to contact directly major

retailers that manage their own recyclables. Going to the source ensures that data is

gathered for all locations in the County, including data from generators in municipalities

where recycling is not mandated that may not be reporting recycling data to the

Authority.

The Authority believes that concentrating on the types of strategies described above will

ensure that the current 37 percent rate is maintained.



Table 4- 5 - Summary of Municipal Yard Waste Facilities in Lancaster County

Facility Operator Type of Material Collected* Location

BR B L GC G T WC WW SColumbia Borough X X X X X X 254 Blue Lane, Columbia Lancaster Twp Maintenance Facility

X X X X X X 1357 Meadowcreek Lane, Lancaster

Manheim Twp Compost Park

X X X X X X X 2775 Oregon Pike, Lancaster

Manor Twp Compost Site

X X X X X X Charlestown Road, Lancaster

Mount Joy Borough X X X X X 159 S Jacob St., Mount Joy Salisbury Township X X X X X 5581 Old Philadelphia Pike,

Gap

Terre Hill Borough X X X X X X 426 Linden St., Terre Hill West Earl Township X X X X X X 161 Locust St., Talmage * BR = Branches, B=Brush, L = Leaves, GC=Grass Clippings G=Grass (Sod), T=Tree Trimmings, WC = Wood Chips, WW = Wood Waste (Clean), S=Stumps Land Clearing Debris


Table 4- 6 - Lancaster County Municipal Recycling Program Summary4


Municipality Program Type

Newsprint Glass Aluminum Steel/ Bi-Metal

Plastic Yard Waste

Leaves1 White Goods

Tires Christmas Trees

OCC

Adamstown Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X Akron Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X

Bart Township N/A Brecknock Township N/A Caernarvon Township Curbside/Drop-Off X X X X X X X Christiana Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Clay Township N/A Colerain Township N/A Columbia Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Conestoga Township N/A Conoy Township N/A Denver Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Drumore Township N/A Earl Township Curbside X X X X X X X X East Cocalico Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X East Donegal Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X East Drumore Township N/A East Earl Township N/A East Hempfield Township Curbside X2 X X X X X X X X X X East Lampeter Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X East Petersburg Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X Eden Township N/A Elizabeth Township Drop-Off X X X X X Elizabethtown Borough Curbside X2 X X X X X X X X X X Ephrata Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X Ephrata Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X Fulton Township Curbside X X X X Lancaster City Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Lancaster Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X Leacock Township N/A Lititz Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X



Table 4-6 Lancaster County Municipal Recycling Program Summary4 (Cont.)

Municipality Program Type

Newsprint Glass Aluminum Steel/ Bi-Metal

Plastic Yard Waste

Leaves1 White Goods

Tires ChristmasTrees

OCC

Little Britain Township Curbside X X X X

Manheim Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X

Manheim Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Manor Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X Marietta Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Martic Township N/A Millersville Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Mount Joy Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Mount Joy Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X Mountville Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X New Holland Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X X X

Paradise Township Curbside X X X X X X X Penn Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X Pequea Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X Providence Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X Quarryville Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X Rapho Township Curbside/Drop-Off X X X X X X X Sadsbury Township N/A Salisbury Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X Strasburg Borough Curbside X X X X X X X X Strasburg Township Curbside X X X X X Terre Hill Borough Curbside/Drop-Off X X X X X X X X X X Upper Leacock Township

Curbside X X X X X X X X X X

Warwick Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X West Cocalico Township

Curbside X X X X X X X

West Donegal Township

Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X



Table 4-6 Lancaster County Municipal Recycling Program Summary4 (Cont.)

Municipality Program

Type Newsprint Glass Aluminum Steel/

Bi-MetalPlastic Yard

WasteLeaves1 White

GoodsTires Christmas

Trees OCC

West Earl Township Curbside X X X X X X X X X X X West Hempfield Township


West Lampeter Township


LCSWMA 3 Drop-Off X X X X X X X X X

1 Special Fall leaf collection 2 Magazines accepted with newsprint

3 LCSWMA accepts materials at Transfer Station, Resource Recovery Facility and Frey Farm Landfill 4: Source: 2009 D&B Report



CHAPTER 5 SELECTION AND JUSTIFICATION

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process used to select the overall waste

management system for the County and provide justification for the selection.

5.1 OVERVIEW OF SELECTED MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The current municipal waste system was developed by the Lancaster County Solid

Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA), on behalf of Lancaster County, in

accordance with the “Municipal Waste Management Agreement” (Appendix A). The

System involves a combination of public and private participation. Collection services for

recyclables and all types of waste are managed by the private sector. The Authority

manages the processing and disposal of MSW from residences and businesses.

Processing and recycling/disposal of C&D waste and white goods are shared between

the Authority and the private sector. The Authority assists with the consolidation and

shipping of mixed recyclables at its Transfer Station, and the private sector manages the

processing and marketing of recyclables. Yard waste, biosolids and septage are

managed by a combination of private and municipal entities. Infectious and

chemotherapeutic waste is managed privately. The Authority plans to maintain this

system over the ten-year planning period covered by this Plan Update.

To ensure the tipping fee revenues that are necessary to construct, operate and

maintain LCSWMA’s Integrated System, municipal waste generated in Lancaster

County is directed to Authority facilities through a combination of waste flow ordinances

and hauler agreements. This flow control system has continually been in effect, and

has further evolved over the past 20 years (hauler agreements began in 1994).

LCSWMA essentially has three tiers of municipal waste flow control in place:



1. Municipal Waste Flow Ordinances. 59 of the 60 Lancaster County municipalities

enacted ordinances that designate LCSWMA with the responsibility to manage

their municipal waste. In order to fulfill this responsibility, the ordinances further

state that each municipality’s municipal waste must be directed to LCSWMA

facilities. These ordinances were executed by municipalities in late 1986/ early

1987. An example of a Municipal Waste Flow Ordinance is located in Appendix

B.

2. County Waste Flow Ordinance. This ordinance establishes that, as LCSWMA is

the entity responsible for managing the municipal waste on behalf of 59 of the 60

Lancaster County municipalities, it is necessary for this waste to be delivered to

LCSWMA facilities. The County Waste Flow Ordinance is located in Appendix C.

3. Hauler Agreements. LCSWMA and all haulers collecting more than 100 TPY of

MSW have entered into agreements specifying that haulers must deliver

municipal waste generated in the County to LCSWMA facilities. The hauler is

provided with a per-ton rebate on a quarterly basis for abiding by the agreement.

Initial Hauler Agreements were established in 1994, and all haulers as noted

above have entered into new five-year agreements that now extend through

2012.

The reasons for selecting continuation of the current system are as follows:

Fulfillment of Public Goals—This has been the preferred system selected by

Lancaster County municipalities and public officials, as originally described in the

1986 Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan, and as confirmed in multiple

updates to that Plan. This fully Integrated System was selected based upon the

technical, economic, environmental and long-term merits that are discussed in

detail in the earlier Plan. The Authority, in its delegated role to effectively manage

all municipal waste generated in the County, values these merits.



Efficiency—Materials are currently flowing from points of generation to

processing and disposal or recycling sites efficiently. The locations of Authority

facilities for transfer, processing and/or disposal of MSW and C&D waste are

convenient to haulers. Other C&D processing facilities within the County offer

convenient options for generators willing to source-separate C&D waste.

LCSWMA provides a convenient curbside-collected recyclables consolidation

point, with efficient transfer of recyclables to private processing facilities. Private

and public facilities are available throughout the County for the management of

yard waste, biosolids and septage.

Cost-Effectiveness—Haulers have voluntarily opted to enter into the five-year

contracts with the Authority to deliver MSW to Authority facilities. The current

Authority tipping fees, which include rebates for those that deliver minimum

quantities of waste to Authority facilities, are competitive with rates at other

facilities in the region. In addition, the locations of Authority facilities are

convenient and minimize transportation costs to the haulers, thus neutralizing

any advantage that might result from lower tipping fees at out-of-state facilities.

Also, there are many options within the County for managing recyclables, yard

waste, biosolids and septage, and other special wastes. Having a number of

facilities available results in competitive costs to system users.

Provision of Sufficient Capacity—The Authority has continued to provide a

municipal waste processing and disposal system that insures sufficient disposal

capacity is available for Lancaster County’s residents and businesses, in an

efficient, cost-effective and environmentally conscious manner. As mentioned in

Chapter 3, the amount of waste processed at LCSWMA facilities is projected to

increase over the next ten years. In order to continue to provide for the County’s

needs, this plan presents the steps the Authority is taking to provide processing

and disposal capacity past the ten-year planning period, including a possible

expansion of the RRF (from 1,200 to 1,800 tons per day (TPD)), and provision for



long-term (past 2019) waste disposal needs of the County at the Authority’s Frey

Farm Landfill. These actions, and others, will help the Authority continue to

provide adequate capacity to manage all waste and recyclables generated in

Lancaster County throughout the planning period and beyond. Descriptions of

the proposed expansions of the RRF and FFLF are in Chapter 3.

5.1.a Existing Municipal Waste Processing Systems

LCSWMA will continue to utilize the Resource Recovery Facility to process most of the

MSW generated in Lancaster County. However, the current RRF is inadequate to

process all of the available processible waste from within the County, without further

modification. A possible expansion of the RRF, from a 1,200 TPD to an 1,800 TPD

nominal processing rate, initially appears to be economically feasible, but will result in

some excess capacity at the RRF, especially in the early years of use, until Lancaster

County’s processible waste stream grows to more fully utilize the capacity. Therefore,

the feasibility of this expansion is largely dependent on the ability of the Authority to

obtain sufficient quantities of waste from out-of-county sources to optimize utilization of

the expanded RRF capacity. The economic feasibility of the RRF expansion is also

dependent on the ability to attract out-of-county processible waste at prices that will

offset the additional capital and operating costs associated with the expansion.

To obtain additional waste, LCSWMA’s initial approach will be to enter into cooperative

arrangements with nearby Pennsylvania counties who may wish to ease landfilling

waste and opt for waste-to-energy, but do not have the necessary scale to host their

own waste-to-energy plant. The Authority may consider developing one or more

satellite transfer stations in the southern and/or eastern parts of the County as a

component of a regional disposal agreement with a neighboring county. Although the

RRF expansion is not contingent upon the addition of satellite transfer stations and vice

versa, the transfer capacity may be used to both consolidate waste in the south and

northeast waste sheds, as well serve to provide waste to an expanded RRF. The



importation of out-of-county waste would positively affect LCSWMA’s Integrated System

by increasing the amount of renewable energy generated at the RRF from 36

megawatts to 56 megawatts, an increase of 55%. This could be achieved with a very

minimal impact on traffic through an additional 30 truck trips per day.

LCSWMA’s RRF is the key component for processing the County’s municipal waste.

Due to the mechanical nature of the RRF, there are, and will continue to be, scheduled

and unscheduled events where some or all of the RRF may not be available for

processing. In case of significant down time at the RRF, this Plan Update identifies and

designates the York County Resource Recovery Center as an Emergency Bypass

Facility, allowing LCSWA to continue to manage County waste through waste-to-energy.

This will ensure environmentally sound and economically viable management of

Lancaster County’s municipal waste. A letter of understanding between LCSWMA and

the York County Solid Waste Authority has been entered into to document this

emergency arrangement, and this agreement is presented in Appendix K. It is expected

that the need for and utilization of this bypass facility will be limited.

It is projected that if the RRF is expanded with the addition of a 600-ton-per-day unit by

2015, the life of the Frey Farm Landfill would be extended by approximately one (1)

year, and any future landfill expansions would also see extended life due to increased

processible waste diversion to the RRF. Expansion of the Frey Farm landfill is further

discussed in Section 5.1.b.

The Authority will continue to depend on its Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Facility

to manage HHW delivered by County residents. Separate management of HHW is

possible through use of this facility, and provides a no-cost option for residents who

prefer to keep these materials out of the municipal waste stream; it is also useful for

managing certain materials that are potentially problematic for the RRF.

White goods received by the Authority will continue to be managed by having a

LCSWMA-certified staffer remove the gas from appliances that contain CFCs at the



Authority’s facilities, and by transporting these and all other white goods to a shredding

operation for recovery of metals. White goods from other sources that do not contain

CFCs will continue to be delivered directly to scrap processors for metals recovery. The

current system is adequate to manage the processing of white goods generated in the

County, and no further options are being explored at this time.

Finally, the County will continue to utilize the current system for managing infectious and

chemotherapeutic wastes. The system, which relies primarily on on-site processing to

reduce the waste and render it sterile, supplemented by collection and processing of

this material by the private sector where on-site processing is not available, with final

disposal of the sterilized material at the Authority’s Frey Farm Landfill, is adequate to

meet the needs of the County for the ten-year planning period. No further processing

options are being considered at this time.

5.1.b Existing Municipal Waste Disposal Systems

The Authority’s Frey Farm Landfill is the disposal facility for non-processible waste and

other wastes that cannot be accepted at the RRF. The Frey Farm Landfill is expected to

reach capacity in 2019, as mentioned in Chapter 3. To plan for disposal capacity

beyond 2019, the Authority has proposed a vertical expansion of the Frey Farm landfill

(FFLF) using mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) berms. The FFLF Vertical Expansion

(FFLF VE) is described in Chapter 3, Section 3.6.b. The FFLF VE will provide

approximately 10 million cubic yards of additional disposal capacity, allowing the

Authority to extend the useful life of the Frey Farm Landfill to approximately 2042.

The FFLF VE has been determined, under separate engineering evaluation, to be a

technically feasible, environmentally sound and economically feasible project for the

Authority to undertake at this time. The expansion will allow the Authority to continue

operations with no down-time during construction. The FFLF VE will allow the Authority



to provide the disposal capacity needed for disposal of ash residue from the RRF,

biosolids, certain permitted residual wastes and C&D waste generated in the County.

The only permitted and operating landfills in the County, other than the Frey Farm

Landfill, are the Milton Grove Construction and Demolition Waste Landfill in Mount Joy

Township, and the Lanchester Landfill in Caernarvon Township. The Milton Grove

Construction and Demolition Waste Landfill, operated by Veolia Environmental Services,

is permitted by DEP to accept an average of 1,000 tons per day of C&D waste,

shredded tires and residual waste. C&D waste is delivered to Milton Grove by out-of-

county sources. The Lanchester Landfill, owned and operated by the Chester County

Solid Waste Authority, is permitted to accept an average of 1,650 tons per day of MSW,

asbestos, C&D waste, sludges and other approved non-hazardous residuals. A vast

majority of the waste delivered to Lanchester Landfill is generated in Chester and Berks

Counties.

5.1.c Recycling Systems

The Authority accepts mixed (commingled or single-stream) recyclables at its Transfer

Station on the Harrisburg Pike. These recyclables are accepted for a minimal tipping

fee (currently $10 per ton), and are consolidated into an open-top trailer for shipping to

a materials recovery facility (MRF) for processing and recovery. The Authority maintains

an agreement with a MRF that outlines terms of receipt and processing of recyclables

from the Transfer Station. This consolidation and shipping of recyclables by the

Authority provides private haulers with a centralized convenient drop-off point for

recyclables collected through curbside programs.

The Authority has not been involved operationally in the processing or marketing of

recycled materials in the past, and does not plan to do so during this ten-year planning

period (with the exception of recyclables generated within Authority operations). The

Authority will, however, still encourage additional recycling when it is economically



feasible by: 1) providing technical assistance to help non-mandated municipalities

establish curbside or drop-off programs if the interest exists; 2) encouraging greater

corrugated cardboard collection points, and; 3) encouraging businesses and institutions

to reassess their efforts and develop and/or expand recycling programs when it is

economically feasible.

LCSWMA will continue to rely on the seven (7) existing material recovery facilities

(MRFs) that currently provide for the processing and marketing of recyclables collected

in Lancaster County, during this ten-year planning period. These MRFs have sufficient

capacity to manage the recyclables now being generated within the County, and there is

no need to consider additional management options or facilities at this time.

In addition, LCSWMA will continue to rely on the twelve (12) public and private facilities

that compost, land apply, or produce mulch from yard waste generated in the County.

There is adequate capacity within the existing system for managing these materials, so

there is no need to explore other options for handling these materials at this time. With

regard to encouraging the diversion of woody waste, the Authority, in 2002, coordinated

with municipalities and haulers a curbside collection program for yard waste (leaves,

woody material). The program was successful and now includes 39 municipalities that

currently have some type of curbside collection program for yard waste. To provide a

cost-effective means of processing yard waste, the Authority purchased a large

shredder machine that processes the material into a coarse mulch product. The

Authority provides an operator and transports the shredder to municipal sites for a

fraction of the cost of a private wood/yard waste processor.

5.2 EXISTING ALTERNATIVES

There are currently no known options in Lancaster County, other than those described

within this plan, for the processing and disposal of MSW (including C&D waste),

processing and marketing of recyclables and yard waste, and processing, marketing



and/or disposal of biosolids/septage, HHW, white goods, and infectious and

chemotherapeutic wastes.

Processing

Other MSW processing options exist in adjacent counties, including the York County

Resource Recovery Center (RRC) in York County, and the Harrisburg Cogeneration

Facility in Dauphin County. As noted earlier, the RRC is being identified in this Plan

Update as an Emergency Bypass Facility for Lancaster County’s waste if significant

downtime is encountered at the RRF.

A list of these facilities, which includes location, ownership, distance from the Transfer

Station, and average daily permitted capacity, are included in Table 5-1 at the end of this

chapter. Other similar processing facilities exist within a wider radius of Lancaster

County as well. While some of these facilities offer comparable or lower gate fees for

MSW, the higher transportation costs and lack of convenience for Lancaster County

haulers make them less attractive as an option for processing. Also, many of these

facilities are operating at or very near their permitted daily capacity. There appears to

be no need for the County/Authority to negotiate for additional capacity, possibly

displacing waste delivered to these facilities from other Pennsylvania generators, given

the possibly expanded RRF’s ability to manage the County’s MSW.

There are scrap dealers outside Lancaster County capable of processing and recycling

white goods. The Authority’s rules and regulations only require that white goods be

separated from MSW prior to delivery to Authority facilities. There is nothing that

prohibits generators from delivering these materials to other processors. There are

sufficient outlets for white goods, and the County is not exploring other options at this

time.

Similarly, no further options are being considered for processing and disposal of

infectious and chemotherapeutic waste. The current system of on-site processing or



collection by the private sector, and disposal of sterilized materials in the Frey Farm

Landfill, is adequate for handling this material.

Disposal

Other than the Frey Farm Landfill, there are numerous permitted MSW landfills located

within a 50-mile radius of the Transfer Station, as shown in Table 5-1. The closest are:

1) Greater Lebanon (Lebanon Co.)--25 miles

2) Lanchester (Chester/Lancaster Counties)--25 miles

3) Modern (York Co.)--25 miles

4) Conestoga (Berks Co.)--30 miles

5) Western Berks (Berks Co.)--30 miles

6) Southeastern Chester County Refuse Authority (SECCRA-Chester Co.)--35

miles

7) Pioneer Crossing (Berks Co.)--40 miles

8) Pine Grove (Schuylkill Co.)--40 miles

Two of these facilities are publicly owned and operated facilities, and were designed

and operate primarily to serve specific geographic areas. These include SECCRA and

Greater Lebanon. Because these facilities are intended to serve specific geographic

areas and are not permitted to accept MSW generated in Lancaster County, these

facilities have not been considered as potential alternatives for disposal of Lancaster

County MSW.

Of the remaining landfills, Pine Grove does not appear to be a realistic alternative due

to very limited remaining capacity. Additionally, distance and primarily secondary road

systems serving this facility from Lancaster County would make transferring waste to

this facility costly.



Lanchester, Modern, Conestoga, Western Berks and Pioneer Crossing all appear to

represent reasonable alternatives, but are not being considered for the following

reasons: 1) Lancaster County’s Frey Farm Landfill vertical expansion will provide

sufficient disposal capacity, and the Authority currently has flow control ordinances in

place and contracts with nearly all permitted haulers to deliver MSW to Authority

facilities; 2) the five landfills already have commitments for nearly all of their average

daily permitted capacity, so accommodating Lancaster County’s waste does not seem

realistic without displacing waste from other generators, and; 3) hauling waste to sites

other than those operated by the Authority would add cost in terms of transportation.

The Authority’s Rules and Regulations permit disposal of County-generated municipal

waste in facilities located outside of Pennsylvania as long as the waste is delivered in

accordance with all applicable laws relating to environmental matters.


Table 5- 1 - Alternative Disposal Facilities in Pennsylvania

Facility Owner County Ownership Distance from the Transfer Station

Average Daily

Permitted Capacity

(TPD)

Landfills

Greater Lebanon

Greater Lebanon Refuse

Authority

Lebanon Public 25 520

Lanchester Chester County SWA

Chester/Lancaster Public 25 1,650

Modern Landfill

Republic Services, Inc.

York Private 25 4,667

Conestoga Republic Services, Inc.

Berks Private 30 5,210

Western Berks Landfill

Chesmont Berks Private 30 450

Southeastern Chester Co. Refuse Authority

SECCRA Chester Public 35 375

Pioneer Crossing JP Mascaro Berks Private 40 1,000

Pine Grove Waste Management

Schuylkill Private 40 850

Waste-to-Energy Facilities York County RRF York County

SWA York Public 45 1,344

Harrisburg WTE City of Harrisburg

Dauphin Public 30 800

Recycling

There are numerous alternatives available outside the County for the processing and

marketing of recyclables and yard waste. Haulers are not obligated to deliver these

materials to Lancaster County sites, and may choose to haul them to out-of-county

processors and/or markets if the economics of doing so are in their favor. A statewide




list of recycling markets is available from the DEP, and county recycling coordinators

generally keep lists of all processors and markets for their own counties. While the

County believes that the current system is adequate and cost effective, there is no

requirement that these materials be delivered to facilities within the system described in

this plan.

5.3 CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT

Lancaster County currently relies on an existing infrastructure for managing C&D waste

that involves a combination of recycling and disposal. Several private sector entities

accept materials that can be recycled including drywall, concrete/masonry, and clean

wood waste. The remainder is landfilled or used as clean fill by both private and public

sector operators, with the Authority managing and disposing of an average of 78,000

TPY (over the previous 10-year planning period) of this remaining, primarily mixed,

C&D waste at this time. The current system is adequate to manage the processing of

C&D waste generated in the County, and no further options are being explored at this

time.

5.4 BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Lancaster County will continue to rely on the current system for managing biosolids,

which involves processing of wastewater at 19 publicly operated facilities and

generating biosolids that are primarily land applied, composted, or otherwise recycled

back into a productive use. Numerous sites throughout Lancaster County are permitted

to accept biosolids for land application and very little is landfilled. Table 5-2 lists the

permitted land application sites in the County.

In addition to these management practices, the FFLF does accept biosolids from

WWTPs operated in the County. The Frey Farm Landfill vertical expansion will have

capacity to meet the disposal needs of all biosolids generated annually, if it is ever



required. Therefore, the expanded system is sufficient to manage the biosolids

generated from County sources over the next ten years so other options are not being

considered in this Plan Update.

5.5 SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The County will continue to rely on the wastewater treatment plants listed in Table 1-3,

as well as permitted land-application sites in the County, to accept septage. As

indicated with biosolids, the current system is adequate to handle the needs of the

County, and LCSWMA is not considering other options at this time.

Table 5- 2 - Permitted Biosolids Land Application Sites in Lancaster County(1)

Permittee Client Name

A Dale Herr Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

A Thomas Harnish Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Aaron I Weaver Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Abe Barley Sr. Farm 4 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority

Abram Stoltzfoos Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Amos Conley Farm Kline’s Services, Inc.

Anchor Road Farm 21 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority

Ben Smoker Farm Honey Wagon Septic Service

Carl G Troop Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Charles Groff Farm Christiana Boro Sewer Authority

Charles Noll Farm Lititz Boro Sewer Authority

Charlesie Coates Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Christ Fisher Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Craig Farm 1 Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Craig Farm 2 Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Dale Rineer Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Dave Neidigh Farm Middletown Boro

David Byers Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

David N Zimmerman Farm Ephrata Boro Authority




Dean Hess Farm Lititz Boro Sewer Authority

Denlinger Farm Star Rock Farms LLC

Dennis Bender Farm Kline’s Services, Inc.

Dennis Drager Farm Columbia Boro Municipal Authority

Dorothy Testerman Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Eastern Industries Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Elam Lapp Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Ephrata Borough Authority Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Ervin Horst Jr. Hilltop Road Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Ervin S Burkholder Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Fite 1 Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Fred Seldomridge Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Fred Weaver Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Frey Bros Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

G Preston Lefevre Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Garber Farm Milton Grove Mount Joy Sewer Authority

Gary Akers Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Gehman Farm Shupps Grove

Gil Lad Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Glen Fite Little Britain Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Graver Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Hannum Farm 1 Philadelphia Water Dept.

Hannum Farm 2 Philadelphia Water Dept.

Harvey Heller Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Henry Fisher Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Henry Zimmerman Home Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Huyard Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Ivan Z Sensenig Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

James Garber Colebrook Road Farm Mount Joy Sewer Authority

James Shirk Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

JMG & Sons Milton Grove Farm Mount Joy Sewer Authority

Joesph Hess Jr Farm Columbia Boro Municipal Authority

John and Doris Landis Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

John Harnish Farm 1 Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

John Harnish Farm 2 Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

John Harnish Pequea Lane Farms Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.




John Landis Long Road Farm Kline’s Services, Inc.

John McSparran Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

John Weaver Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Jonas Reiff Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Jonathan Lapp Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Joseph Hess Sr Farm Columbia Boro Municipal Authority

Keith Fahnestock Farm Lititz Boro Sewer Authority

Ken Rutt Hidaway Drive Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Kenneth Hertzog Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Kibler Farm 5 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority

Kirk Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Kolin McCauley Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Landis Farm Kline’s Services, Inc.

Martin and Martin Farm Adamstown Boro (Berks and Lancaster Counties)

Martin Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Martin Greenleaf Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Melvin King Farm Advanced Organic Koncepts Inc.

Metzler Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Mount Joy Boro Authority Farm Mount Joy Sewer Authority

Nancy Esbenshade Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Nolt Dale Farm William H Davis & Sons Septic Service

R McSparran Farms 1 & 2 Philadelphia Water Dept.

Reuben Weaver Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Richard Stauffer Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Ridgewood Manor MHP Frank M & May Anna Haldeman

Robert Breneman Farm Honey Wagon Septic Service

Samuel Ankrum Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

Shenk Farm Farm 6 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority

Shoemaker Bros Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Stonewall Farms Kline’s Services, Inc.

Strawbridge Farm Mobile Dredging & Pumping Co.

Vernon Charles Farm Kline’s Services, Inc.

Walter M Hurst Farm Ephrata Boro Authority

Wenger Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

William Brossman Farm Adamstown Boro (Berks and Lancaster Counties)




William Shirk Farm Synagro Mid Atlantic Inc.

Wood 2 Farm Philadelphia Water Dept.

1: Source: PADEP Website.



CHAPTER 6 LOCATION

The purpose of this chapter is to identify the physical location of processing and

disposal facilities in Lancaster County.

6.1 LOCATION OF FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE PART OF OVERALL SYSTEM

Many of the facilities and programs described in this plan/chapter are in Lancaster

County with the exception of some of the sludge (biosolids) and septage utilization/

disposal facilities, listed in Table 1-3. Figure 6-1 shows the geographic location of the

facilities owned and operated by the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management

Authority (LCSWMA), as well as private facilities that process or recycle C&D waste.

MSW Processing/Disposal (LCSWMA-owned facilities)

Transfer Station Complex – Manheim Township 1299 Harrisburg Pike Lancaster, PA 17604

Household Hazardous Waste Facility – Manheim Township 1299 Harrisburg Pike Lancaster, PA 17604

Lancaster County Resource Recovery Facility – Conoy Township 1911 River Road Bainbridge, PA 17502

Frey Farm Landfill – Manor Township 3049 River Road Conestoga, PA 17512

C&D Waste Processing

Agri-Marketing, Inc. – West Cocalico Township 190A Texter Mountain Road Reinholds, PA 17569



Lancaster Airport – Manheim Township 500 Airport Road, Suite G Lititz, PA 17543 Martin Mulch – Ephrata Township 973 N. State Street Ephrata, PA 17522 Gypsum Agri-Cycle, Inc. – East Donegal Township 295 Oremine Rd Mount Joy, PA 17552 C&D Waste Disposal Milton Grove Landfill – Mount Joy Township 2487 Cloverleaf Road Elizabethtown, PA 17022

These are all privately owned and operated facilities. C&D waste is also accepted at the Transfer Station and the Frey Farm Landfill.

Biosolids and Septage Processing/Disposal

Table 1-3 lists all wastewater treatment plants that generate biosolids requiring disposal.

Septage is accepted for processing at the following facilities located in Lancaster

County:

Christiana Borough WWTP Ephrata Borough WWTP Plants 1 & 2 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority WWTP (Manor Township) Lititz Borough WWTP New Holland Borough WWTP Terre Hill Borough WWTP Manheim Borough WWTP Adamstown Borough WWTP



Most biosolids and some treated septage are land applied at one of the 92 permitted

sites located throughout Lancaster County. Table 5-2 in Chapter 5 lists the permitted

biosolids land application sites and the clients who dispose of biosolids at these

facilities. Also, some biosolids are disposed of at the Authority’s Frey Farm Landfill.

Recycling Programs Municipal recycling programs and activities are located within the municipalities

identified in Table 4-6 of Chapter 4.

Yard Waste A summary of municipal yard waste and leaf management facilities located in Lancaster

County is contained in Table 4-5 of Chapter 4.


Figure 6-2 - Existing Municipal Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities




CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTING ENTITY IDENTIFICATION

7.1 DEFINE ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE MUNICIPAL WASTE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (LCSWMA) is the entity

responsible for implementing this Plan and for all future municipal waste planning and

Plan revision activities for Lancaster County. The legal basis for such authority is

contained in the existing County-Authority Agreements, Intermunicipal Agreements and

Waste Flow Ordinances, which were executed pursuant to the 1986 Plan, the 1990

Plan, and the 1999 Plan. These documents are contained in Appendices A through C.

The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and each municipality within the County

have delegated to LCSWMA all powers that have been granted to counties under

Section 303 of Act 101 and to municipalities under Section 304 of Act 101. This

delegation of powers and duties to the Authority is necessary in connection with the

Authority’s obligation to implement the Plan and to provide a safe, reliable, effective and

efficient solid waste management system for the County.

LCSWMA is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. Members are appointed

by the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and serve terms of office of five

years. The Authority has all powers provided for under the Municipality Authorities Act,

including the powers to take any and all actions and to exercise all such powers as are

necessary or appropriate to design, develop, finance, construct, own, operate and

manage a safe, reliable, effective and efficient solid waste management system. Such

powers and actions include but are not limited to:

Promulgating Rules and Regulations and fees applicable to the storage,

collection, transportation, processing and disposal of solid waste generated in

Lancaster County.



Incurring indebtedness and maintaining reserve funds and self-insurance

accounts.

Adopting By-Laws and administrative policies, procedures and organizational

structure.

Purchasing equipment and facilities; employing staff, advisors and contractors.

Providing staff support, meeting facilities, pertinent information, and directing the

activities of any Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by the County.



CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC FUNCTION

8.1 JUSTIFICATION OF PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners determined when they adopted the

1986 Plan that it is in the public interest for municipal waste processing to be a public

function. At that time, the Commissioners created the Lancaster County Solid Waste

Management Authority as the entity which was responsible for implementing the

County’s municipal waste management plan.

The Authority owns and operates the Frey Farm Landfill. It owns the Resource

Recovery Facility (RRF) and has contracted with Covanta Lancaster, Inc. (CLI) for

operation and maintenance of the RRF through December 31, 2016. The Authority also

owns and operates the Transfer Station, administrative offices, household hazardous

waste (HHW) facility and maintenance facility, all located on LCSWMA property on the

Harrisburg Pike in Manheim Township.

In order to continue providing economical and efficient management of waste and

assure disposal capacity, LCSWMA will need to make capital improvements to the

System during the 10-year planning period. LCSWMA is currently assessing the

feasibility of expanding the RRF from 1,200 tons per day (TPD) to 1,800 TPD, through

the addition of a fourth combustion unit to the facility. This expansion should provide

reliable service to Lancaster County for decades. Additionally, it is projected that the

Authority’s Frey Farm Landfill will reach capacity in 2019. A vertical expansion project at

the Frey Farm Landfill is now being initiated by the Authority, and will be available for

use prior to the completion of filling activities at the currently permitted cells. The

vertical expansion of the Frey Farm Landfill will provide approximately 23 years of

additional disposal capacity, through approximately 2042. Finally, In order to provide

for more efficient transportation of waste and/or optimize the utilization of an expanded

RRF, the Authority may consider developing one or more satellite transfer stations in the



southern and/or eastern parts of the County. The new transfer station(s) would improve

transportation efficiencies through the consolidation of waste. Additionally, if these

transfer stations were located on the perimeter of the County, they could also serve to

provide waste to fully utilize an expanded RRF.

The Authority has demonstrated the ability to own and operate waste processing and

disposal facilities in an environmentally safe, reliable and efficient manner. Authority

operation provides the direct ability to assure that all waste haulers, and multiple types

of waste, are segregated and delivered in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of

the Authority. Although private ownership and operation of future processing and

disposal facilities would be no more efficient or reliable, and could detract from the

Authority’s execution of its responsibilities, it is the philosophy of the Authority to utilize

private sector involvement where the private sector demonstrates that it has the desire,

expertise, and resources to perform safely, reliably and efficiently, and in which it can

provide the financial security to support operational guarantees. The Authority intends

to continue to rely on the private sector to provide municipal waste and recycling

collection services, recyclable materials processing and marketing, liquid sludge and

septage collection and processing, construction and demolition recycling, and operation

and maintenance of the Resource Recovery Facility.



CHAPTER 9 COPIES OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

9.1 DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The documents necessary for implementation of this Plan are:

Lancaster County Resolution

LCSWMA Rules and Regulations

Incorporation by reference of all 1986, 1990, and 1999 Plan Implementation

Documents

Upon completion of this Plan revision, the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners

will adopt the revised Plan in the form of a resolution contained in Appendix E. This

adoption is effective for the entire County and requires no other municipal approvals or

implementing mechanisms.

The completed Plan and resolution will be submitted to DEP for approval. Upon

approval by DEP, each municipality within the County will receive a copy of the

completed Plan revision advising each of them of the County’s adoption and DEP’s

approval.

The LCSWMA Rules and Regulations that are included in Appendix H set forth, among

other things, requirements and procedures for licensing of haulers, categories of solid

wastes, designated facilities for certain categories of waste, operating and safety rules

and fees for acceptance of wastes. These rules and regulations apply to the entire

County.

In addition to the above described documents for adoption and implementation of the

Plan, all documents in connection with the 1986, 1990, and 1999 Plans will remain in

full force and effect. Those prior documents include the resolutions, ordinances and

agreements included as part of the 1986, 1990, and 1999 Plans; various agreements

entered into by Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority for the purchase,



financing, design, construction and operation of the Lancaster County Solid Waste

Management System and any revisions; and any and all other documents and

agreements that the County or the Authority have utilized for (a) development of the

current municipal waste management system and (b) implementation of the 1986, 1990,

and 1999 Plans.

Should additional implementing documents become necessary for full implementation of

this Plan, LCSWMA has full authority for the adoption and execution of any and all

documents deemed necessary to carry forth its obligations and to implement this Plan.



CHAPTER 10 ORDERLY EXTENSION

10.1 DEMONSTRATION THAT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL

PLANS

This Plan has been updated to provide for the orderly extension of municipal waste

management programs in a manner that is consistent with the needs of Lancaster

County. The Plan update has been developed with consideration of best available

estimates of population and economics, use of best available technologies and good

engineering practice, and in accordance with current federal, state and local laws and

regulations. It is also in accordance with the provisions of the 1986, 1990, and 1999

Plans.



CHAPTER 11 METHODS OF DISPOSAL OTHER THAN BY CONTRACTS

11.1 VEHICLES FOR MANAGING PROCESSING/DISPOSAL OTHER THAN CONTRACTS

As described in Chapter 5, the current municipal waste system in Lancaster County

involves a combination of public and private participation. Residential and commercial

municipal waste, other than the processing and recovery of recyclables and selected

construction & demolition (C&D) waste, are designated to be processed and/or

disposed of in facilities operated by the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management

Authority. Management of recyclables (except for the consolidation of materials

delivered to LCSWMA’s Transfer Station), sewage sludge and septage, and infectious &

chemotherapeutic waste (ICW) are carried out by the private sector. While some of

these wastes are handled and/or disposed of in Authority facilities, the County is not

required by this planning process to designate that they be managed at Authority

facilities and has elected not to do so. The current system has been efficient and cost-

effective. The additional capacity needed in the future to handle these wastes is

discussed in Chapter 5. The wastes are being managed responsibly at this time.



CHAPTER 12 NON-INTERFERENCE

12.1 DEMONSTRATION THAT PLAN DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH OTHER PLANS OR

FACILITIES

The Lancaster County Municipal Waste Management Plan will not interfere with the

design, construction, operation, financing or contractual obligations of any municipal

waste processing or disposal facility. Contractual arrangements with nearly all haulers

serves to guide municipal waste generated in Lancaster County (with the exception of

recyclables, selected C&D waste, sewage sludge and septage, and ICW) to Authority-

operated facilities, and these wastes have been going to Authority facilities since

implementation of the 1986 Plan. As stated in Chapter 5, there are other facilities in

Lancaster County and the surrounding counties that can and do accept recyclables and

the other wastes for processing and disposal. The County has not, nor does it plan to,

interfere with any part of the construction or operation of these facilities.



CHAPTER 13 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

13.1 Public Participation in Plan Update Process

In early 1988, a resolution by the Lancaster County Commissioners created the Citizens

Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide for public participation in the Plan development

process. This group functions under the direction of the Lancaster County Solid Waste

Management Authority’s Board of Directors. Around the same time, the Authority’s

Board of Directors adopted a resolution authorizing the Authority to coordinate the work

of the CAC, provide meeting facilities, resources and a directed responsibility to assist

in reviews and updates of the Lancaster County Municipal Waste Management Plan.

On May 18, 1988, the Lancaster County Commissioners appointed 25 people with

varied backgrounds and interests to serve on the CAC. The composition of the CAC

meets the criteria for membership as set forth in Section 503(a) of Act 101. The CAC

held its first meeting on July 12, 1988 for the purpose of assisting in the development of

the 1990 Plan. Membership of the CAC has been maintained over the last 19 years, as

new members have joined the committee and others have gone off the committee

roster.

This standing committee has continued to meet approximately quarterly since its

initiation, providing advice and comment to the Authority on environmental issues.

Meetings have, at times, occurred with a greater frequency than quarterly meetings as

required by the activities underway by the Authority.

The CAC has met several times during 2008 and 2009 as LCSWMA has conducted this

Plan update process. The CAC has been presented with draft Plan Update materials

for review and comment, and has otherwise been involved and informed of the plan

revision process. This opportunity for CAC committee input is very important, and has



been taken into consideration in preparing this revised plan. The Committee has had

opportunity to review and comment on each chapter of this plan during its preparation.

Below is a list of CAC meetings where the 2010 Plan Update has been discussed:

November 19, 2008 The CAC was advised that a Consultant had been

hired by the Authority to conduct a System Capacity

Review of the Authority’s Resource Recovery Facility

over the next 25 years. Also, The CAC was advised

that a new Municipal Waste Management Plan

Update would be undertaken in 2009, and the CAC

would be involved in the planning process.

May 27, 2009 The CAC was advised of the Authority’s issuance of

an RFP for a consultant to assist LCSWMA with the

10-year Municipal Waste Management Plan Update,

and that Barton & Loguidice had been awarded that

contract. The 2010 Plan Update schedule was

discussed.

September 30, 2009 The CAC received draft copies of Chapters 1 through

4 of the 2010 Plan Update. Barton & Loguidice

provided the CAC with a summary presentation of

these chapters, and responded to questions and

requests for clarification raised at the meeting. CAC

members were asked to provide any remaining

comments on draft chapters 1-4 to the Authority staff

within the next two weeks.

November 18, 2009 The CAC was presented with a final draft of the 2010

Plan Update. Barton & Loguidice presented the Plan

to the CAC and responded to questions. The CAC



moved to approve the draft Plan Update and to

continue with the approval process by LCSWMA

providing a copy to each municipality and the County

Planning Commission for a 30-day review and

comment period. The CAC further recommended

approval of the Plan by the LCSWMA Board of

Directors and the County Commissioners, pending

any municipal comments, prior to submission to DEP.

The Authority notified PADEP of its intent to initiate the Plan Update process on

December 23, 2008, and PADEP acknowledged the initiation of the planning process,

using the non-substantial plan revision procedures, on January 7, 2009. The Authority

notified, by letter dated June 10, 2009, all 60 municipalities within Lancaster County that

the Lancaster County Municipal Waste Plan Update process had commenced on June

5, 2009. The means for providing municipal input during the planning process was

explained in this letter.

The draft Plan Update is being distributed to all municipalities for review and comment,

and a 30-day public comment period, in accordance with the non-substantial plan

revision process of Act 101, is being scheduled to facilitate public input to this Update.

Appendix G contains minutes of the CAC meetings listed above, as well as copies of

the three letters of correspondence referenced above. Also included in Appendix G are

the comments received during the public comment period from the Lancaster County

Planning Commission and Conoy Township, host municipality of LCSWMA’s Resource

Recovery Facility.

Once all public comment is taken and considered, the 2010 Plan Update will be adopted

by resolution of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority (resolution to



be placed in Appendix D) and also by the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners

(resolution to be placed in Appendix E). After adoption, the Plan Update will be

submitted to PADEP for review and approval. Once received, the PADEP plan approval

letter will be placed in Appendix F.



13.2 Ongoing Public Participation

As noted above, the CAC meets periodically, and the CAC will continue to meet

periodically to hear about, and to review and comment on, activities of the Authority.

These CAC meetings are always open to the public.

The County regularly provides additional opportunities for participation by the public.

During the fall of each year, the Authority hosts a public meeting for Lancaster County’s

elected officials and their management staff to discuss revisions to the Rules and

Regulations, the next year’s budget, and any municipal waste issues that may affect the

municipalities, including planning and the Plan Update process. The Authority usually

hosts a tour of its solid waste management facilities at this time. This meeting provides

an opportunity for municipal officials to share their insights on waste management

activities in the County, and their comments are taken into account in the planning and

budgeting process. Similar but separate meetings are also scheduled with the haulers

and the CAC, and as with the elected officials, their comments are considered as well.



CHAPTER 14 OTHER INFORMATION

There is no additional information related to municipal waste and this planning process

to be included in this Chapter.

Appendix A

Municipal Waste Management Agreement

Appendix B

Municipal Waste Flow Ordinance

Appendix C

County Waste Flow Ordinance

Appendix D

Resolution by Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority

Board of Directors Approving Plan Update

Appendix E

Resolution by Lancaster County Board of Commissioners Approving Plan Update

Appendix F

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Letter Approving Plan Update

Appendix G

Correspondence and Public Participation

11/3/2009 C:\Documents and Settings\and\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\WCJ73QGQ\08NOV19MINUTES.doc

MINUTES OF THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

NOVEMBER 19, 2008 The Citizens Advisory Committee to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority met at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at the office of the Authority, 1299 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA. ATTENDANCE Committee members present were: Chairperson Horst, Adams, Frey, Neff, Olsen, Edie, Longenecker and Weibel. Absent were: Bauder, Dilts, Johnston and Strickland. Staff present were: Warner, Baker, Milburn, and Dougherty. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no one from the public present. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES (Since no quorum was established for the June 25, 2008 meeting, there was no action taken by the Citizens Advisory Committee.) Mr. Horst asked for corrections and additions to the minutes of the April 9, 2008 meeting. On motion by Ms. Weibel, second by Mr. Longenecker, and by unanimous vote the minutes were approved as distributed. BILLS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Dougherty stated that due to a conflict in meetings Ms. Johnston was unable to attend today’s Committee meeting. Ms. Dougherty informed the Committee she will be retiring at the end of 2008. Deb Milburn will be taking her place to do the minutes for the Committee. OLD BUSINESS

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee November 19, 2008 Page 2 Financial Status and Accomplishments - Mr. Warner stated the Authority dedicated the Transfer Station Complex in May 2008.

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee November 19, 2008 Page 3 A slideshow handout was distributed. Highlights are as follows: Achieved Major 2008 Goals

- Excellent Environmental Performance - Facility availability was 100% - Exceeded all Financial Goals - Achieved goals of the County Municipal Waste Plan - Recycling Rate = 37% - Dedicated Transfer Station Complex

2008 System Tonnage Projection (Total Tons = 636,200) 2008 County MSW Tonnage = 506,800 (excludes C&D waste) System Totals Projected for 2008 LCSWMA’s Landfill vs. Peers Environmental Performance (1997-2007) 2009 Budget Revenue $55,024,558 C & D Tipping Fees History/Forecast Total Revenue 2009 Budget Expenses $50,378,374 Operating & Support Expenses 5-Year Trend Debt Service Total Revenue vs. Total Expense per System Ton 2009 Capital Expenditures Year End Operating and Reserve Funds Capital Projects Update Transfer Station Complex Project Costs

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee November 19, 2008 Page 4 Creswell Reuse Project - Review of Tasks/Milestones/Timeline - Future system Capacity Review Developing Municipal Recreational Partnerships - Northwest River Trail - Farmingdale Road Trail - Norfolk Southern Dillerville Rail Yard Relocation - Future Site - Manor Township Rail Trail Initiative - Columbia Truck By-Pass Study A Public Officials meeting was held on November 7, 2008 with about 50 plus visitors. Throughout this year the Authority was able to achieve the main goals that were established dealing with waste in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. At no time throughout the year did the Authority have to shut down any facilities for problems. The availability to customers was 100%. The Authority exceeded all financial goals. Staff worked hard to keep the organization financially strong. Municipal Waste was down 5% for the year 2008 versus last year’s 2%. This was due to the economic downturn which had a negative impact on business. Construction/Demolition projects gave us a positive income bringing in 100,000 tons. The Authority began taking processed ash from the Harrisburg Waste Authority; at this time they have no permitted room in their landfill. LCSWMA decided to take this ash due to our Landfill needing additional cover for the Norfolk Southern project. The Authority started taking the ash in September and will continue for one year. Harrisburg Waste Authority should again be permitted to receive the ash by September 2009. System Performance - Totals show how tonnages have jumped due to the ongoing projects. This data is pulling down the overall average per ton processed because the large projects are priced below average refuse rate. Resource Recovery Facility will process 376,000 tons in 2008. There has been a 90% reduction in net revenue, less our transportation costs. The Landfill is storing metals and waiting to ship to market in the spring in the hope that prices rebound.

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee November 19, 2008 Page 5 Frey Farm Landfill will use 3.23% of total yards in 2008. Mr. Olsen noted the biggest change in the Transfer Station project was separating the homeowners from the mainstream of haulers. The average turn around time for haulers is about 8 minutes. This is a great improvement from 15-45 minutes. Mr. Edie stated another benefit is less trucking on the roads and more cost savings to the customers. Haulers can now haul twice as much in the same amount of time using the Transfer Station. LCSWMA was the recipient of Envision Smart Growth Leadership Award for Large Infrastructure from the Lancaster County Commissioners and Planning Commission; and Preservation Honor Award for New Construction from the Historic Preservation Trust of Lancaster County. Household Hazardous Waste Facility has increased participation seven-fold. This is due to the convenient drive-through facility, and receiving computers and televisions. Environmental Performance - The Authority continues to be perfect at the Frey Farm Landfill. Keeping that number at zero is not an accident; it is due to working at it. 2009 Proposed Budget – LCSWMA’s budget of $55 million is higher than most years. No fees will be raised because of the Norfolk Southern rail yard project. After 2009, there is a plan for a $5 increase per ton. The Authority does work to drive revenues, but also works hard to control expenses. LCSWMA has been able to keep expenses down to under 2% a year. Year End Reserve Funds are still very healthy. Capital Projects Update – The Creswell Reuse Project 2008 estimated cost of $160 million will be spent throughout the life of that facility. A consultant was hired for the System Capacity Review to review for the next 25 years. Details of current recycling efforts and the costs related to adding a 4th boiler at the Resource Recovery Facility will be reviewed. Developing Municipal Recreational Partnerships – LCSWMA and Conoy Township are cooperating to design an at-grade walkway around the Schock’s Mill bridge abutment. LCSWMA has completed an option agreement to purchase a 13-acre property in Conoy Township at the northern end of the Northwest River Trail. Farmingdale Road Trail will be completed in November 2009. LCSWMA is funding 100% of the trail design and construction. Norfolk Southern rail yard will be located behind the Lancaster Post Office. Removal of

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee November 19, 2008 Page 6 1,000 tons of waste daily will go to Frey Farm Landfill. Manor Township is working towards developing a low-grade rail trail along the river. The Authority agreed to pay Manor Township 10% of the net tipping fees for the Norfolk Southern project. Columbia truck by-pass study should be completed by the end of 2009. The Authority will be contributing up to $500,000 for this study, which is 1/3 of the total cost. The CAC will be working on updates to the County Plan next year. Mr. Warner stated a reporter from the Wall Street Journal came and talked about Carbon Credits and visited all the sites. An article was printed in the Monday, October 20, 2008 issue. NEW BUSINESS Future meeting Agenda – Mr. Horst stated the Committee is welcome to bring new topics up for discussion at CAC meetings. CAC meetings are scheduled four times in 2009: February 18, May 27, August 19, and November 18. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the CAC will be held on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Horst adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m.

11/3/2009 C:\Documents and Settings\and\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\WCJ73QGQ\09May27MINUTES.doc

MINUTES OF THE

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MAY 27, 2009

The Citizens Advisory Committee to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority met at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at the office of the Authority, 1299 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA.

ATTENDANCE

Committee members present were: Chairperson Horst, Adams, Bauder, Dilts, Edie, Frey, Johnston, Neff, Olsen, and Strickland. Absent was: Longenecker. Staff present were: Warner, Baker, and Ramsden-Herr.

PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no one from the public present.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Mr. Horst asked for corrections and additions to the minutes of the November 19, 2008 meeting. On motion by Mr. Bauder, second by Mr. Strickland, and by unanimous vote the minutes were approved as distributed.

BILLS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Ramsden-Herr stated there were no bills or communications.

OLD BUSINESS

Financial Status and Accomplishments - Mr. Warner stated the Norfolk Southern project has brought in approximately 46,000 tons of material to-date and is about half-way complete. There are 100,000 to 107,000 tons of waste anticipated. He also explained how the waste is excavated and the soil certification process. Manor Township will receive 10% of the Net profit from this project

Mr. Dilts asked about clean up for the downtown project and who is paying for that.

Mr. Warner replied that the property was purchased “as is” and F&M and LGH are responsible for the liability and cost of any future use or cleanup.

System Performance – Totals show tonnages are rising due to ongoing projects.

Capital Projects Update – The Dvirka and Bartilucci capacity study report for the RRF has been completed. The Executive Summary from this report was distributed for the CAC to examine and was discussed as New Business.

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 2 Developing Municipal Recreational Partnerships – The Northwest River Trail project is proceeding as planned. The Boroughs of Columbia and Marietta are working together with West Hempfield Township, East Donegal Township, and Conoy Township. LCSWMA is helping with the Conoy Township portion of the trail. Property has been purchased and LCSWMA’s portion of the trail will be leased back to Conoy. Funding is being shared for the Shock’s Mill Bridge study.

The Farmingdale Road trail is advancing on schedule. Two students from the Lancaster County Career and Technology Center have been hired to work on the trail as part of their senior project.

Mr. Warner stated that a Newspaper story should appear in the next few days regarding property purchased at the Landfill from Tom Frey. Mr. Frey was selling 29 acres that is zoned industrial. LCSWMA purchased this parcel as well as two others allowing ownership of almost the entire Mann’s Run watershed. These parcels will provide dirt if needed, as well as setback distance needed for the proposed wind turbines. The cost was approximately $21,000 per acre.

Mr. Bauder asked about the location of the 29 acres and if there were any current plans for the property.

Mr. Warner responded that there are no current plans except perhaps the use of dirt in the long-term if needed.

Mr. Horst asked if any communication had been received from the neighbors.

Mr. Warner replied that currently no issues have been raised with those residents that live closest to the Landfill.

Mr. Horst asked if any PADEP regulations are necessary.

Mr. Warner responded that at this time, there is no need to contact PADEP. When the Landfill property is “re-drawn” formal certification will be needed from PADEP.

Mr. Adams reported on the County Plan stating that it must be updated every 10 years. Requests for Proposals were sent and the project was awarded to Barton & Loguidice. Completion is estimated to be in October or November. State grants will cover all of Barton & Loguidice’s costs. The purpose of this plan is to show how facilities will be kept within capacity and how to sustain recycling opportunities.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Warner stated that a new, all-time record of 1,400 tons was received at the Transfer Station.

The Mercury “Bounty” Program sponsored by Covanta was discussed. This special collection event was held from April 1 – 30, 2009 to encourage the reduction of mercury in the municipal waste stream.

Dvirka and Bartilucci System Capacity Study – According to this report, the RRF received 1,200 tons per day, which is full, but not yet over capacity. Due to the recession,

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 3 waste amounts from normal waste streams have slowed a bit. Waste from special projects continues to rise.

Mr. Warner discussed the conclusions from the Executive Summary.

Mr. Bauder asked where the cost analysis in the summary comes from.

Mr. Warner replied that the model did not include inflation and the 5.5% estimated rate may or may not be accurate. It also shows costs without needing to increase tipping fees.

Ms. Johnston asked about what parties may be involved in increased waste.

Mr. Warner responded that LCSWMA is hoping to partner with other communities who may need to free up Landfill space, such as York, Harrisburg, Dauphin or Chester County to provide extra tonnage.

If Dauphin or Chester County is an interested party, there may be talk in the future of building a Transfer Station closer to them for bringing the waste to the expanded RRF.

Mr. Warner also noted that operating the RRF with all four boilers at near capacity would be able to light every home in Lancaster City. Our reputation will encourage others to get involved when the time comes.

Mr. Bauder asked if the numbers on the table in the Executive Summary assume that capacity will be used.

Mr. Warner replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Bauder also asked if there were issues with the Pennsylvania Utilities Commission (PUC).

Mr. Warner responded that years ago it was hard to buy electric. However, now that companies are recommended to have a certain amount of renewable energy, it has become easier to sell. There are no laws, but there are more incentives than ever before.

Wind Project Update – Mr. Warner answered questions regarding this project.

Ms. Johnston asked what the estimated life of a wind turbine is.

Mr. Warner replied that it is about 40 years with proper maintenance.

Mr. Dilts asked why there are times when passing a “wind farm” that all the turbines are not rotating.

Mr. Warner explained that maintenance involves taking the turbines “offline” to service them.

Mr. Bauder asked how the maintenance on the turbines was performed.

Mr. Warner replied that with the popularity of wind energy, there are now special schools that train individuals to work on the turbines.

Mr. Warner further stated that our turbines are going to be 7.2M kWh or 30% capacity. In Atlantic City, NJ the turbines were at 3.41 kWh for 3 years or so.

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 4

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

The transition of Ms. Karen Weibel from the CAC to the LCSWMA Board of Directors left the CAC Vice-Chairman position vacant. Mr. Strickland, asked if anyone was interested in this position. Mr. Fred Olsen volunteered for the Vice-Chairman position. Mr. Horst will remain as Chairman and Mr. Strickland will continue as Secretary.

On motion by Mr. Bauder, second by Ms. Johnston, and by unanimous vote the election of officers was approved as distributed.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the CAC will be held on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Strickland adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.

11/3/2009 C:\Documents and Settings\and\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\WCJ73QGQ\DRAFT_09September30MINUTES.doc

MINUTES OF THE

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

The Citizens Advisory Committee to the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management

Authority met at 1:00 p.m., on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at the office of the

Authority, 1299 Harrisburg Pike, Lancaster, PA.

ATTENDANCE

Committee members present were: Chairperson Horst, Adams, Bauder, Edie, Frey, Neff,

and Olsen. Absent were: Dilts, Johnston, Longenecker, and Strickland. Staff present

were: Warner, Wilhelm, Rose, and Ramsden-Herr. Also present were: Terry Keene and

Ashley Duncan; Barton & Loguidice and Ed Gordon; Vice-Chairman of LCSWMA Board of

Directors.

PUBLIC COMMENT

There was no one from the public present.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Mr. Horst asked for corrections and additions to the minutes of the May 27, 2008 meeting.

Ms. Ramsden-Herr noted that there was one correction to the minutes. On motion by Mr.

Olson, second by Mr. Frey, and by unanimous vote the minutes were approved as

corrected.

Mr. Warner introduced Mr. Ed Gordon, Vice-Chairman of LCSWMA’s Board of Directors

BILLS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Ramsden-Herr stated that Ms. Johnston and Mr. Dilts notified her that they were

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 2 unable to attend the meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Warner introduced Ms. Jennifer Rose, LCSWMA Communication Manager. Mr.

Warner also explained the personnel restructuring that was done.

Mr. Horst suggested that the CAC members introduce themselves and explain their

backgrounds to the visiting attendees.

Norfolk Southern Rail Yard Project – Mr. Warner described the process of Lancaster

General Hospital and Franklin and Marshall College to remediate the old Brickyard site. As

part of this project, 104, 000 tons of waste was removed. About 20,000 tons of cleanfill was

sold, until a cheaper source was attained. LCSWMA grossed $3.7 million from this project.

LCSWMA shared $344,000 with Manor Township as compensation for the inconvenience

of increased truck traffic to the Frey Farm Landfill. The project is currently accepting bids

for the construction of the rail yard. A transfer of this land to Norfolk Southern will occur at

a later date now that waste has been excavated and backfilled.

Mr. Gordon asked if there are more foreseeable waste opportunities with LCSWMA for

this next phases project.

Mr. Warner replied that the only step LCSWMA will be involved in next for this project is

the land transfer. Norfolk Southern was given a price of approximately $12,000 per acre for

the land.

Northwest River Trail – Mr. Warner asked Mr. Wilhelm to further explain the rail yard

project.

Mr. Wilhelm explained that this is a 14 mile proposed trail running from Conoy Township

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 3 south to the Borough of Columbia. LCSWMA is working closely with Conoy Township to

help develop a portion of the trail. About six miles of the trail will be in Conoy. LCSWMA

and the Township have submitted a grant for them to begin building the trail. It is

anticipated that about a mile of the trail will be built next year. This portion will run south

from Bainbridge to Conoy Creek. Currently, LCSWMA is also coordinating efforts with all

municipalities involved to develop branding for trail, such as a logo, color scheme, and

signage. This will help make all markings on the trail consistent throughout and tying in

with other trails along the Susquehanna. Most communities are moving forward with plans

for the trail.

Mr. Horst asked if the trail is going to be gravel or paved?

Mr. Wilhelm replied that currently each municipality is deciding what is best for each

portion. The plan for Conoy Township is for a paved trail.

Mr. Warner added that only half of the Conoy trail is going to be paved. There is a portion

that is dirt.

Mr. Wilhelm further added that the final plan calls for the entire trail to be paved. The

section LCSWMA is working on with Conoy Township next year is planned for paving.

Mr. Horst asked if once the portions are paved, if the other municipalities will be more

amenable to removing the dirt.

Farmingdale Road Project – Mr. Warner explained that this project has concluded and

the trail and nature area has been opened to the public. The trail is just over three miles

with three loops of varying lengths. The trail covers area from Good Drive to the Little

Conestoga Creek on land on both sides of Farmingdale Road that LCSWMA has owned

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 4 since 2002. This project was done as economically as possible, using LCCTC students to

perform the work. The Noel Dorwart park was dedicated and the trail “officially” opened on

September 18, 2009. Interpretive panels will be erected showing the history of the land

and why the Lancaster Brick Company was first settled on the land. The land was

purchased by the Authority when Lancaster Malleable liquidated their assets, which

included the land that LARA had used for the disposal of waste from the late 1950s to the

early 1960s. The Authority is proud to have such a nice trail to offer the community.

Wind Project Update – This project is a joint effort between PPL and the Authority. The

primary reasoning for this project is that there is enough wind to provide energy and

Turkey Hill Dairy is a large base-load user for the energy that would be generated. Over

the last 6 months, electricity prices have plummeted following the natural gas trend as is

common. Turkey Hill is not expected to pay more for the wind power than they pay for

power from the grid. Currently, gas prices are coming back up and electricity is expected to

follow that trend and rise as well. Turkey Hill Dairy’s owner, Kroeger Foods, is now looking

at the value of the marketing opportunity that receiving this wind power offers. LCSWMA

has given them any and all rights to market this opportunity however they choose. An

agreement is pending and it is hoped that this partnership will be officially agreed upon by

all three parties in the near future. The Federal Stimulus Bill has affected this project as

well. Pennsylvania offered a grant using the money from this bill. LCSWMA was one of 384

applications and received the maximum amount of $1.5 million. LCSWMA was approved

for the maximum amount. If for some reason, the Turkey Hill/Kroeger agreement would fall

through, the electricity will be sold into the grid. The turbines will be two, 86-meter, 1.6

megawatt, General Electric turbines and the project is slated to be built next summer. It is

expected to be completed by fall next year. This will be Southcentral Pennsylvania’s first

Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee May 27, 2009 Page 5 commercial wind project. The plan is to set up a pavilion near the Reiber House to allow

people to view a meaningful explanation of how many kilowatt hours are being produced

between all the renewable efforts at the Landfill (i.e. landfill gas, wind power, etc.). Tours

will also be scheduled in order for people to view the turbines up close. At the annual

Landfill meeting there will be an additional discussion about the wind power. The meeting

will be held at the old Creswell Elementary School on October 14, 2009.

NEW BUSINESS

Revision of County Plan – Tom Adams explained that the changes have been made to

the plan, as discussed at the May 2009 meeting, according to the State Legislation Act 101

and Act 97 to ensure ten years of disposal capacity. Mr. Terry Keene, Barton and

Loguidice, reviewed the changes that are being made to the plan. The final draft will be

reviewed and approved by the CAC at the November meeting.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the CAC will be held on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 1:00

p.m.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Horst adjourned the meeting at 2:09 p.m.

Appendix H

Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority 2010 Rules and Regulations

Appendix I

Dvirka and Bartilucci March 2009 Executive Summary

Appendix J

NERC Model Graphs and Tables

Updated by Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) and Abt Associates, Inc.© April 2009

Worksheet 2. Environmental ImpactsEstimates of the Environmental Impacts of Recycling in Lancaster County

Date of Calculator Analysis: July 23, 2009

Table 1. Materials Management Overview

Tons Recycled

Tons Source

Reduced/Reused Tons Landfilled

Tons Incinerated/ Waste-To-

EnergyTotal Tons Disposed

Reporting Year 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008

Aluminum Cans 610.00 0.00

Steel Cans 2,309.00 0.00

Glass 5,488.00 0.00

HDPE 1,447.00 0.00

LDPE 7.00 0.00

PET 1,736.00 0.00

Corrugated Cardboard 44,474.00 0.00

Magazines/Third-class Mail 27,492.00 0.00

Newspaper 11,904.00 0.00

Office Paper 2,835.00 0.00

Phonebooks 6.00 0.00

Textbooks 0.00 0.00

Whole Computers 392.00 0.00

Food Scraps 1,145.00

Yard Trimmings 29,102.00

Grass 0.00

Leaves 0.00

Branches 0.00

Ferrous Scrap Metal 9,830.00 0.00

Aluminum Scrap Metal 134.00 0.00

Copper Wire 0.00 0.00

Tires 9,815.00 0.00

Construction & Demolition 6,371.00 0.00

Carpet 0.00 0.00

Dimensional Lumber 22,668.00 0.00

Medium-density Fiberboard 0.00 0.00

Clay Bricks 0.00 0.00

Aggregate 0.00 0.00

Fly Ash 0.00 0.00

Mixed Paper, Broad Definition 912.00 0.00

Mixed Metals 2,245.00 0.00

Mixed Plastics 1,733.00 0.00

Mixed Recyclables 1,347.00 0.00

Mixed Organics 0.00

Other Recyclables 299.00 0.00

Total 184,301.00 0.00 328,972.00 368,759.00 697,731.00

Rate (% of Generation) 20.90% 0.00% 37.30% 41.81%

Rate (% of Disposal) 47.15% 52.85%

Source:

Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA

Estimating the Environmental Benefits of Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling

The following tables summarize the estimated environmental benefits of source reduction, reuse and recycling and provide comparison figures to put these estimates in context.

NOTE: If you have trouble with label formatting, see instructions at the bottom of the page.

Chart 1a. Amount of Materials Recycled Chart 1b. Materials Management Overview

Chart 1c. Amount of Materials Source Reduced & Reused Chart 1d. How Waste is Diverted

Recycled21%

Landfill37%

Incineration/ Waste-To-

Energy42%

Materials Management Overview

87.62

5.49

15.13

4.92

30.25

40.89

Paper Glass Metal Plastic Organics Other

Amount of Materials Recycled (x1,000 Tons)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Paper Glass Metal Plastic Other

Amount of Materials Source Reduced & Reused (x1,000 Tons)

Recycled100%

Source Reduced and

Reused0%

How Waste is Diverted

Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) © April 2009

Paper Glass Metal Plastic Other


Table 3. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Result of Recycling

Tons Recycled

Reporting Year 2008Aluminum Cans 610.00 -2,274.32 8.42 -2,282.74Steel Cans 2,309.00 -1,131.15 -499.68 -631.47Glass 5,488.00 -417.34 67.64 -484.98HDPE 1,447.00 -553.91 196.09 -750.00LDPE 7.00 -3.26 0.95 -4.21PET 1,736.00 -734.32 276.36 -1,010.68Corrugated Cardboard 44,474.00 -37,732.59 -2,316.77 -35,415.82Magazines/Third-class Mail 27,492.00 -23,022.31 -3,042.90 -19,979.41Newspaper 11,904.00 -9,085.42 -2,653.99 -6,431.43Office Paper 2,835.00 -2,204.29 384.55 -2,588.84Phonebooks 6.00 -4.35 -1.34 -3.01Textbooks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Whole Computers 392.00 -242.96 -9.47 -233.49Food Scraps 1,145.00 -61.87 70.56 -132.43Yard Trimmings 29,102.00 -1,572.59 -2,225.49 652.90Grass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Leaves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Recycling (MTCE)

Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Recycling as Compared to

Disposal (MTCE)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions if

Recyclables Had Been Disposed

(MTCE)

methane) or waste incineration facilities; and/or 2) long-term storage of carbon in landfills.


Leaves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Branches 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ferrous Scrap Metal 9,830.00 -4,815.58 -2,127.25 -2,688.33Aluminum Scrap Metal 134.00 -499.61 1.85 -501.45Copper Wire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Tires 9,815.00 -4,922.53 161.43 -5,083.97Construction & Demolition 6,371.00 NA NA NACarpet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Dimensional Lumber 22,668.00 -15,178.49 -4,094.03 -11,084.46Medium-density Fiberboard 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Clay Bricks 0.00 NA NA NAAggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Fly Ash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mixed Paper, Broad Definition 912.00 -879.55 -54.94 -824.61Mixed Metals 2,245.00 -3,218.99 -335.19 -2,883.80Mixed Plastics 1,733.00 -719.81 252.04 -971.85Mixed Recyclables 1,347.00 -1,059.00 -101.53 -957.47Mixed Organics 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other Recyclables 299.00 NA NA NATotal as a Result of Recycling 184,301.00 -110,334.25 -16,042.69 -94,291.56

Total as a Result of Source Reduction, Reuse & Recycling 184,301 -110,334 -16,043 -94,292

Sources:Table 2: Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Result of Source Reduction and ReuseRe-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA

2. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition." Sept. 2006 1. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html.


Chart 3. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Result of Recycling

GHG Emissions from Disposal

-60,000.00

-40,000.00

-20,000.00

0.00

Impacts of Recycling and Disposal on GHG (MTCE/Year)


GHG Emissions from Recycling

GHG Benefit of Recycling (vs. Disposal)

-120,000.00

-100,000.00

-80,000.00

*A negative value for disposal may be due to the following factors: 1) avoided greenhouse gas emissions at electric utilities due to energy production at landfills (using recovered methane) or waste incineration facilities; and/or 2) long-term storage of carbon in landfills.


Table 4. Greenhouse Gas Savings Comparisons

Annual Emissions (MTCE)

Percent of Total Emissions

Source Reduction, Reuse and

Recycling Emission Reductions as a

Percent of Emissions

MAJOR GHG EMISSION SOURCESReporting Year 2001Industry 363,763,636.36 20.03 0.03Utility 605,645,454.55 33.35 0.02Waste 34,609,090.91 1.91 0.27Transportation 525,027,272.73 28.91 0.02Other 286,990,909.09 15.80 0.03Total 1,816,036,363.64 100.00 0.01

MAJOR CO 2 EMISSION SECTORS FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTIONReporting Year 2005Commercial 3,477,272.73 4.60 2.71Industrial 12,796,363.64 16.94 0.74Residential 6,523,636.36 8.64 1.45Transportation 19,712,727.27 26.09 0.48Utility 33,038,181.82 43.73 0.29Total 75,548,181.82 100.00 0.12

Sources:1. Table 2. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Result of Source Reduction and Reuse 2. Table 3. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Result of Recycling

http://cait.wri.org/4. U.S. EPA. "Energy CO2 Inventories." (2006). 1 Sept. 06 http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_energyco2inv.html3. World Resources Institute. "Climate Analysis Indicators Tool


4. U.S. EPA. "Energy CO2 Inventories." (2006). 1 Sept. 06 http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/state_energyco2inv.html


Table 6. Energy Savings as a Result of RecyclingNote: Negative numbers denote energy savings.

Tons Recycled

Reporting Year 2008Aluminum Cans 610.00 -125,916.20 367.69 -126,283.89 -21,773.08 -1,016,466.70 -1,824.90 -9,963.93 -1,234.45Steel Cans 2,309.00 -46,110.73 -20,269.13 -25,841.60 -4,455.45 -208,000.58 -373.43 -2,038.93 -252.61Glass 5,488.00 -11,689.44 2,988.93 -14,678.37 -2,530.75 -118,147.07 -212.11 -1,158.14 -143.48HDPE 1,447.00 -73,652.30 -15,271.81 -58,380.49 -10,065.60 -469,908.15 -843.64 -4,606.28 -570.68LDPE 7.00 -392.07 -73.88 -318.19 -54.86 -2,561.14 -4.60 -25.11 -3.11PET 1,736.00 -91,712.88 -9,174.51 -82,538.37 -14,230.75 -664,356.39 -1,192.74 -6,512.36 -806.83Corrugated Cardboard 44,474.00 -685,789.08 -171,960.11 -513,828.97 -88,591.20 -4,135,840.69 -7,425.21 -40,541.63 -5,022.77Magazines/Third-class Mail 27,492.00 -18,969.48 -75,221.90 56,252.42 9,698.69 452,779.18 812.89 4,438.37 549.88Newspaper 11,904.00 -196,296.96 -51,238.39 -145,058.57 -25,010.10 -1,167,585.28 -2,096.20 -11,445.27 -1,417.97Office Paper 2,835.00 -28,576.80 -10,832.06 -17,744.74 -3,059.44 -142,828.46 -256.42 -1,400.08 -173.46Phonebooks 6.00 -68.52 -25.83 -42.69 -7.36 -343.65 -0.62 -3.37 -0.42Textbooks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Whole Computers 392.00 -17,028.48 -1,114.51 -15,913.97 -2,743.79 -128,092.54 -229.97 -1,255.63 -155.56Food Scraps 1,145.00 664.10 -1,229.52 1,893.62 326.49 15,241.84 27.36 149.41 18.51Yard Trimmings 29,102.00 16,879.16 -37,410.52 54,289.68 9,360.29 436,980.93 784.53 4,283.51 530.69Grass 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Leaves 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Branches 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ferrous Scrap Metal 9,830.00 -196,305.10 -86,290.86 -110,014.24 -18,967.97 -885,511.35 -1,589.79 -8,680.24 -1,075.41Aluminum Scrap Metal 134.00 -27,660.28 80.77 -27,741.05 -4,782.94 -223,289.41 -400.88 -2,188.80 -271.17Copper Wire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy Savings in Per "Average" Household (No. of Houses/Year)

Energy Use if All Recycled

(Million BTUs)

Oil Saved (Barrels)

Reduction of Car Emissions (CO2 Tons/Year)

Energy Use if Recyclables Had Been Disposed (Million BTUs)

Net Energy Consumption from


Disposal (Million BTUs)

Gas Saved (Gallons)

Reduction of "Average"

Passenger Cars on the Road/Year


Copper Wire 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Tires 9,815.00 -509,987.40 -76,147.61 -433,839.79 -74,799.96 -3,492,002.91 -6,269.31 -34,230.41 -4,240.86Construction & Demolition 6,371.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NACarpet 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Dimensional Lumber 22,668.00 13,374.12 -102,756.93 116,131.05 20,022.59 934,745.86 1,678.18 9,162.86 1,135.20Medium-density Fiberboard 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Clay Bricks 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAggregate 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Fly Ash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mixed Paper, Broad Definition 912.00 -20,921.28 -3,532.44 -17,388.84 -2,998.08 -139,963.80 -251.28 -1,372.00 -169.98Mixed Metals 2,245.00 -181,553.15 1,234.56 -182,787.71 -31,515.12 -1,471,269.40 -2,641.42 -14,422.14 -1,786.78Mixed Plastics 1,733.00 -90,999.83 -14,342.71 -76,657.12 -13,216.75 -617,017.85 -1,107.75 -6,048.33 -749.34Mixed Recyclables 1,347.00 -22,441.02 -5,180.18 -17,260.84 -2,976.01 -138,933.59 -249.43 -1,361.90 -168.73Mixed Organics 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other Recyclables 299.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NATotal as a Result of Recycling 184,301.00 -2,315,153.62 -677,400.94 -1,637,752.68 -282,371.15 -13,182,371.15 -23,666.73 -129,220.37 -16,009.31

Totals as a Result of Source Reduction, Reuse & Recycling -1,637,752.68 -282,371.15 -13,182,371.15 -23,666.73 -129,220.37 -16,009.31

Sources:Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA1. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/SWMGHGreport.html

3. Table 5. Energy Savings as a Result of Source Reduction and Reuse

http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableV

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/pdf/vm1.pdf

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec13_3.pdf


7. U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway. "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator." 18 Jan 06 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html#vehicles

U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. "2008 Buildings Energy Databook: 2.1.4 Residential Delivered and Primary Energy Consumption Intensities, by Year." (2008). 15 Dec 08 4. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). "Table VM-1: Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data- 2004". (2006) 1 Sept 06

5. Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Annual Energy Review 2005: Table A3: Approximate Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption, Selected Years, 1949-2005." (2006). 1 Sept 06

6. Another source: Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Annual Energy Review 2005: Table A2: Approximate Heat Content of Petroleum Production, Imports, and Exports, Selected Years, 1949-2005." (2006). 1 Sept 06

2. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition." Sept. 2006


Chart 6a. Energy Savings as a Result of Recycling

Energy Use if Recyclables had been Disposed

-1,000,000.00

-500,000.00

0.00

Impacts of Recycling and Disposal on Energy Use (Million BTU/Year)


Energy Use from Recycling

Net Energy Savings from Recycling vs. Disposal*

-2,500,000.00

-2,000,000.00

-1,500,000.00

*A negative value for disposal is due to avoided energy use for electricity generation resulting from energy production at landfills (using recovered methane) and/or waste


Table 7. Energy Savings Comparisons

Statewide Consumption (Million BTUs)

Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Energy Savings as a Percentage of Each

Sector & Source Consumption

Statewide Expenditures

(Million Nominal Dollars)

Value of Source Reduction, Reuse

and Recycling Energy Savings (Million Nominal

Dollars)

Statewide Energy Generation by

Source(Million BTUs)

Source Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Energy Savings as a

Percent of Each Generation Source

ENERGY SECTOR Reporting Year 2006 2006Residential 912,600,000.00 0.18 11,107.30 1,993.32Commercial 687,800,000.00 0.24 6,631.30 1,579.01Industrial 1,300,800,000.00 0.13 9,068.10 1,141.71Transportation 1,031,800,000.00 0.16 19,843.60 3,149.73Total Consumption 3,933,000,000.00 0.04 46,650.40 1,942.58

ENERGY SOURCEReporting Year 2006 2003Petroleum 1,475,000,000.00 0.11Natural Gas 685,500,000.00 0.24Coal 1,501,100,000.00 0.11 395,842,525.60 0.41Hydroelectric 28,200,000.00 5.81Nuclear 785,700,000.00 0.21 253,756,040.96 0.65Total 4,475,500,000.00 0.04 704,095,563.14 0.23

OTHER COMPARISONSMillion BTUs Per Household 191.04

Sources:1. Table 5. Energy Savings as a Result of Source Reduction and Reuse 2. Table 6. Energy Savings as a Result of Recycling

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/_seds.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/smadb.htm4. U.S. Department of Commerce. "State and Metropolitan Area Data Book: 2006." 21 Aug 08.Scroll down in "Contents" to "Tables." Select the PDF file for "States." Click on the bookmark for "Natural Resources, Energy, and

CONSUMPTION COMPARISONS

3. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). "State Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates (SEDS)." (2006). 1 Sept 06

GENERATION COMPARISONSEXPENDITURE COMPARISONS

(Based on the number of households reported in 2000)


http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/smadb.htm

5. U.S. Census Bureau. "State and County QuickFacts." (2000). 21 Dec 05 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

"Contents" to "Tables." Select the PDF file for "States." Click on the bookmark for "Natural Resources, Energy, and Utilities." Scroll to Table A-55, Electric Industry (p. 76).


Chart 7. Energy Savings Comparisons

Energy Saved by Source Reduction,

Statewide Hydroelectric Consumption

Statewide Coal Consumption

0.00

200,000,000.00

400,000,000.00

600,000,000.00

800,000,000.00

1,000,000,000.00

1,200,000,000.00

1,400,000,000.00

1,600,000,000.00

Comparison: Source Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Energy Savings vs. Selected Consumption Sources (Million BTUs)


Source Reduction, Reuse & Recycling-200,000,000.00

Energy Saved by Source Reduction, Reuse & Recycling

Statewide Coal Power Generation

Statewide Nuclear Power Generation

-50,000,000.00

0.00

50,000,000.00

100,000,000.00

150,000,000.00

200,000,000.00

250,000,000.00

300,000,000.00

350,000,000.00

400,000,000.00

450,000,000.00

Comparison: Source Reduction, Reuse, and Recycling Energy Savings vs. Selected Energy Generation (Million BTUs)


Table 8. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as of a Result of Recycling Items in a Typical Curbside Set-Out ContainerNote: This data is based on an average mix of recyclables in a set-out container or blue bin. This could be placed at curbside or dropped off at a Recycling Center or Transfer Station.

Tons Recycled

Reporting Year 2008Aluminum Cans 610.00 -2,274.32 8.42 -2,282.74Steel Cans 2,309.00 -1,131.15 -499.68 -631.47Glass 5,488.00 -417.34 67.64 -484.98HDPE 1,447.00 -553.91 196.09 -750.00LDPE 7.00 -3.26 0.95 -4.21PET 1,736.00 -734.32 276.36 -1,010.68Corrugated Cardboard 44,474.00 -37,732.59 -2,316.77 -35,415.82Magazines/Third-class Mail 27,492.00 -23,022.31 -3,042.90 -19,979.41Newspaper 11,904.00 -9,085.42 -2,653.99 -6,431.43Office Paper 2,835.00 -2,204.29 384.55 -2,588.84Phonebooks 6.00 -4.35 -1.34 -3.01Textbooks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mixed Paper, Broad Definition 912.00 -879.55 -54.94 -824.61Mixed Plastics 1,733.00 -719.81 252.04 -971.85Mixed Recyclables 1,347.00 -1,059.00 -101.53 -957.47Total 102,300.00 -79,821.63 -7,485.10 -72,336.53

Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions from


Disposal (MTCE)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from

Recycling (MTCE)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions if

Recyclables Had Been Disposed

(MTCE)


Total 102,300.00 -79,821.63 -7,485.10 -72,336.53

Sources:Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html

1. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition." Sept. 2006 2. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08


Chart 8. Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions as of a Result of Recycling Items in a Typical Curbside Set-Out Container

GHG Emissions if Recyclables had been

Disposed

-40,000.00

-30,000.00

-20,000.00

-10,000.00

0.00

Impacts of Recycling and Disposal of a Typical Curbside Set-Out Container on GHG (MTCE/Year)


GHG Emissions from Recycling

Net GHG Emissions Reduction from Recycling

vs. Disposal*

-90,000.00

-80,000.00

-70,000.00

-60,000.00

-50,000.00

-40,000.00

*A negative value for disposal may be due to the following factors: 1) avoided greenhouse gas emissions at electric utilities due to energy production at landfills (using recovered methane) or waste incineration facilities; and/or 2) long-term storage of carbon in landfills.


Table 9. Energy Savings as of a Result of Recycling Items in a Typical Curbside Set-Out ContainerNote: Negative numbers denote energy savings.Note: This data is based on an average mix of recyclables in a set-out container or blue bin. This could be placed at curbside or dropped off at a Recycling Center or Transfer Station.

Tons Recycled



Disposal Reporting Year 2008 (Million BTUs)Aluminum Cans 610.00 -125,916.20 367.69 -126,283.89 -21,773.08 -1,016,466.70 -1,824.90 -9,963.93Steel Cans 2,309.00 -46,110.73 -20,269.13 -25,841.60 -4,455.45 -208,000.58 -373.43 -2,038.93Glass 5,488.00 -11,689.44 2,988.93 -14,678.37 -2,530.75 -118,147.07 -212.11 -1,158.14HDPE 1,447.00 -73,652.30 -15,271.81 -58,380.49 -10,065.60 -469,908.15 -843.64 -4,606.28LDPE 7.00 -392.07 -73.88 -318.19 -54.86 -2,561.14 -4.60 -25.11PET 1,736.00 -91,712.88 -9,174.51 -82,538.37 -14,230.75 -664,356.39 -1,192.74 -6,512.36Corrugated Cardboard 44,474.00 -685,789.08 -171,960.11 -513,828.97 -88,591.20 -4,135,840.69 -7,425.21 -40,541.63Magazines/Third-class Mail 27,492.00 -18,969.48 -75,221.90 56,252.42 9,698.69 452,779.18 812.89 4,438.37Newspaper 11,904.00 -196,296.96 -51,238.39 -145,058.57 -25,010.10 -1,167,585.28 -2,096.20 -11,445.27Office Paper 2,835.00 -28,576.80 -10,832.06 -17,744.74 -3,059.44 -142,828.46 -256.42 -1,400.08Phonebooks 6.00 -68.52 -25.83 -42.69 -7.36 -343.65 -0.62 -3.37Textbooks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mixed Paper, Broad Definition 912.00 -20,921.28 -3,532.44 -17,388.84 -2,998.08 -139,963.80 -251.28 -1,372.00Mixed Plastics 1,733.00 -90,999.83 -14,342.71 -76,657.12 -13,216.75 -617,017.85 -1,107.75 -6,048.33Mixed Recyclables 1,347.00 -22,441.02 -5,180.18 -17,260.84 -2,976.01 -138,933.59 -249.43 -1,361.90Total 102,300.00 -1,413,536.59 -373,766.33 -1,039,770.26 -179,270.73 -8,369,174.17 -15,025.45 -82,038.94

Sources:


(Million BTUs)

Oil Saved (Barrels)



Gas Saved (Gallons)





http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html





http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html#vehicles

1. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08 2. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition." Sept. 20063. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). "Table VM-1: Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data- 2004". (2006) 1 Sept 064. Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Annual Energy Review 2005: Table A3: Approximate Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption, Selected Years, 1949-2005." (2006). 1 Sept 06


6. U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway. "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator." 18 Jan 06


Chart 9. Energy Savings as of a Result of Recycling Items in a Typical Curbside Set-Out Container

Energy Use from Recycling

Energy Use if Recyclables had been Disposed

Net Energy Savings from Recycling vs. Disposal*

-1,600,000.00

-1,400,000.00

-1,200,000.00

-1,000,000.00

-800,000.00

-600,000.00

-400,000.00

-200,000.00

0.00

Impacts of Recycling and Disposal of a Typical Curbside Set-Out Container on Energy Use (Million BTU/Year)


*A negative value for disposal is due to avoided energy use for electricity generation resulting from energy production at landfills (using recovered methane) and/or waste incineration facilities.


Table 11: Energy Savings from Computer RecyclingNote: Negative numbers denote energy savings.To calculate oil saved in gallons: multiply oil saved in barrels by 42.

Tons Recycled

Reporting Year 2008Recycled Whole Computers 392.00 -17,028.48 -1,114.51 -15,913.97 -2,743.79 -128,092.54 -229.97 -1,255.63

Sources: Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA1. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html





http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html#vehicles




(Million BTUs)



3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). "Table VM-1: Annual Vehicle Distance Traveled in Miles and Related Data- 2004". (2006) 1 Sept 06 4. Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Annual Energy Review 2005: Table A3: Approximate Heat Content of Petroleum Consumption, Selected Years, 1949-2005." (2006).


2. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment

6. U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway. "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies



Disposal (Million BTUs)

Oil Saved (Barrels)

Gas Saved (Gallons)

Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) © April 2009Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC) © April 2009

Table 13. Natural Resource Savings as a Result of Steel & Glass Recycling

Tons RecycledCoal Saved Through

Recycling

Sand Saved Through

RecyclingReporting Year 2008 (Tons) (Tons)Ferrous Steel 13,732.95 823.98 17,166.19 9,613.07 27,603.23Glass 5,488.00 1,042.72 3,567.20 1,125.04 439.04 6,174.00Total 19,220.95 1,866.70 17,166.19 9,613.07 3,567.20 1,125.04 439.04 33,777.23

Sources:Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMA1. Steel Recycling Institute. "Fact Sheet: What are other benefits of steel recycling?" 18 Jan 2006 http://www.recycle-steel.org/PDFs/brochures/buyrec.pdf

3. Glass Packaging Institute. "Glass Recycling and the Environment" (2005). 14 Aug 2006 http://www.gpi.org/recycle-glass/environment/

Table 14: Number of Tree Saplings Grown for 10 Years that Sequester the Same Amount of Carbon as 1 Ton of Recycled Paper

Tons Recycled

Reporting Year 2008Newspaper & Phone Books 11,910.00 619,320.00

Office Paper, Textbooks, Magazines, Cardboard

74,801.00 5,834,478.00

Total 86,711.00 6,453,798.00

2. Personal communication with Steel Recycling Institute. January 2006.

Number of Tree Seedlings Grown for

10 Years

Iron Ore Saved Through Recycling

(Tons)

Total Resources Saved Through Recycling

(Tons)

Soda Ash Saved Through Recycling

(Tons)

Feldspar Saved Through Recycling

(Tons)

Limestone Saved Through Recycling

(Tons)



http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html#seedlings

2. U.S. EPA. "WARM Online, Version 9." (September 2008). September 08 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html


Table 15. Landfill Space Saved as a Result of Paper Recycling

Tons RecycledLandfill Space Saved

Reporting Year 2008 (Cubic Yards)Paper 87,623.00 289,155.90

Sources:Re-Trac Reports/Annual Reports from LCSWMAUS EPA, Common Waste and Materials - Paper Recycling. Accessed January 30, 2009.

1. U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway. "Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator." 18 Jan 06

3. U.S. EPA. "Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition." Sept. 2006


Appendix K

Emergency Bypass Facility Letter of Agreement Between LCSWMA and York County SWA

1299 Harrisburg Pike PO Box 4425 Lancaster, PA 17604

Telephone: 717-397-9968 Web Site: www.lcswma.org

Email: [email protected]

Date post:	12-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times