Lebanon County approves one-year hazmat response agreement with Lancaster County amid mixed votes

Lebanon County commissioners voted to approve a one-year hazardous-materials mutual-assistance agreement with Lancaster County that will make Lebanon County the contracted hazmat response provider for Lancaster when Lancaster’s vendor is unavailable.

The county solicitor, Matt Buickley, told commissioners the agreement would run from July 1 through June 30 for the initial term, include three automatic one‑year renewals, and allow either party to terminate with 30 days’ notice. “There is also a provision…that if Lebanon County team is responding to an incident in Lancaster County and we are not able to assist, we are not held responsible in any way,” Buickley said. The agreement also sets a $20,000 annual payment from Lancaster County to Lebanon County, paid bimonthly, and describes a procedure for invoicing responsible parties for response costs; unpaid invoices older than 150 days can be billed to Lancaster County for reimbursement.

The solicitor said the county’s insurer, the Pennsylvania County Risk Pool, reviewed the agreement language and was satisfied with the liability allocation. He also told commissioners Lebanon County has averaged fewer than 15 hazmat calls since April, with roughly four calls per month.

Commissioners debated the trade-offs of regionalized emergency services. One commissioner objected, saying Lebanon County must keep equipment and crews focused locally for events such as train derailments or large spills: “If you’re down in Manheim to get back here and if there’s an event going on at Mount Hope, our citizens are coming in second,” the commissioner said. Supporters said the agreement preserves local coverage and builds regional sustainability for costly equipment and specialized staffing: “We will never send all of our resources to Lancaster County,” one commissioner said, adding Lebanon County response capability would be retained.

After discussion the motion carried. Commissioners approved the agreement, with one commissioner recorded as voting no. The solicitor said the arrangement has produced positive results during prior mutual-aid responses and will help recoup direct response costs when possible.

The board did not identify a specific implementation start date beyond the agreement’s effective date upon mutual approval by both counties.

Looking ahead, the solicitor said the counties will coordinate on dispatch and reimbursement procedures, and county staff will continue to track response volumes and costs under the agreement.