Lebanon County to draft one-year hazmat services agreement with Lancaster County

Lebanon County emergency services staff told county commissioners they will draft a one-year agreement, renewable up to four additional one-year terms, proposing that Lebanon provide hazardous materials (hazmat) response services for Lancaster County while protecting Lebanon’s response capacity and finances. The discussion took place during a public meeting to receive feedback on the proposed arrangement and next steps.

The proposal, presented by Bob Dowd, Director of the Department of Emergency Services, says the arrangement would cover only hazmat services and build on existing mutual-aid relationships. “Pennsylvania Act 165 requires that each county have a designated hazmat team,” Dowd said, adding the draft would include a 90-day exit clause to allow Lebanon County to withdraw if the arrangement degrades its services or imposes unanticipated financial burdens. Jason Bridal, Special Operations Chief, described the most common incidents the team handles: “Diesel fuel spills ... tractor trailer accidents with their saddle tanks leaking the fuel,” and said the Lebanon team’s role is emergency containment rather than long-term cleanup.

Why it matters: county officials said the contract would place Lebanon County in a formal role to meet Lancaster’s statutory obligation, rather than relying on temporary mutual aid. Commissioners pressed staff to clarify how the arrangement would affect Lebanon’s ability to respond to simultaneous incidents, how billing and equipment reimbursements would flow, and which Lancaster personnel or equipment would be made available under the agreement.

Key details and constraints discussed included a proposed basic term of one year with automatic renewals for up to four additional years, a 90-day unilateral exit clause for Lebanon, and an intent that Lancaster provide and maintain county-owned space and equipment at a Lancaster substation while Lebanon would handle invoicing for calls in Lancaster. Dowd said Lebanon would bill responsible parties and retain collected revenue except for reimbursements to Lancaster for Lancaster-owned apparatus used on a call; the county’s existing eight-county task-force rate schedule and a 15% administration fee for cost-recovery work would remain in place.

Commissioners asked for more precise operational limits. Dowd and Bridal said Lebanon’s roster currently lists about 20 personnel, but availability is dynamic; the presenters noted that the statute’s incident-level minimum functions are an incident commander and a safety officer, and that team composition is risk-based. On minimum staffing, one speaker in the meeting said “it’s 10” when asked about statutory minimums; presenters clarified that certification levels (for example, type 2 team certification) define capability rather than county class.

Board members also sought clarity on who would pay Lancaster personnel participating under the arrangement; Dowd said Lancaster County would continue to pay its own employees and that the draft agreement will address compensation, training and insurance. Commissioners asked staff to confirm whether Lancaster commissioners and Lancaster’s solicitor and insurers have been informed; Dowd said he would begin formal discussions with his Lancaster counterpart and route a draft through solicitors and insurance carriers.

On resource prioritization, Dowd emphasized Lebanon County’s priority: “Our primary objective is always Lebanon County. We will make sure that we protect Lebanon County’s response capabilities at all times.” He added the draft would preserve Lebanon’s right to use mutual aid if Lebanon is committed to a major incident and cannot meet Lancaster obligations.

Commissioners did not vote on the agreement. The meeting ended with direction to staff to draft an agreement reflecting the board’s concerns, run it by solicitors and insurers, and return a draft to both boards for review; several commissioners expressed general support for continuing to investigate the proposal but asked for more detail before approving any final contract. One commissioner said they were “in favor of proceeding with your investigating this opportunity,” while others asked for additional data on call volumes, staffing availability and billing flows.

Next steps noted in the meeting: county staff will draft the proposed inter-county hazmat services agreement, consult Lancaster County counterparts, circulate the draft to solicitors and insurance carriers for feedback, and return the draft to both boards for formal consideration. No formal contract was executed at the meeting.