SWAC Meeting #1

Barton & Loguidice

WESTMORELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #1

March 20, 2018 2:00 p.m. 40 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite 520

Greensburg, PA

AGENDA 1. Introductions – SWAC Members and Consultant Team 2. “Housekeeping” Items Time tracking – sign in and out sheet Track meeting mileage for local grant match

Daniel Carpenter – primary contact “Paperless” Distribution of Materials (identify those that need hard copies)

Project page on B&L’s website – link will be emailed to you when available Meeting agendas, notes, draft materials, schedule, SWAC members Schedule – approximate one-year planning period through August 2018 (handout) Non-Substantial Plan Revision – 2-3 month approval process 3. Planning Overview Previous Plan Ten Year Planning Process Types of Waste - what are we planning for? (handout) Role of the Consultant

Roles of the SWAC Represent the County’s interests and those of your group

Identify issues and ideas Open discussion and feedback Provide a sounding board for study findings and recommendations

Recommend changes, approvals Goal – an open process and a practical, implementable Plan Update 4. Where Are We Now Collected background data from the County Developed Draft Chapters 1-4 and 6-14 Developed the SOI – under review Developed surveys – under review Identify additional issues 5. Discussion of Important Ideas and Issues – Open Discussion Exercise on Ranking Issues (handout) Discuss Ranking “Just One Thing I Want To See This Plan Address” – all participate 6. General Public Comments/ Issues/ Set Next Meeting Date/ Adjournment

Westmoreland County SWAC Meeting #1

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 2:00 pm.

40 North Pennsylvania Ave.

Fifth Floor – Suite 520

Greensburg, PA 15601

Meeting Minutes

In attendance were:

Daniel Carpenter – Planning and Development

Jason Rigone – Planning and Development

Brian Lawrence – Planning and Development

Seth Koons – Planning and Development

Ellen Keefe – Westmoreland Cleanways

Natalie Reese – Westmoreland Cleanways

Kathy Hamilton – Westmoreland Conservation District

Scott Dellinger – Waste Management

Alex Graziani – Penn Township

Russ Salandro – Salandro’s Refuse

Brad Cunningham – PA DEP

David Weber – Delmont Borough

Valerie Morton – Irwin Borough (via phone)

Ashley Duncan, P.E. – Barton and Loguidice (via phone)

#1 – Introductions

The meeting was started at 2:10 pm by Daniel who gave a brief welcome and explanation as toAshley’s physical absence due to inclement weather/traffic. Formal introductions were made byeveryone.

#2 “Housekeeping” Items

Ashley discussed the use of a sign-in sheet, and for the purpose of document review, documents willbe provided via paperless delivery (email and website). She also notified the committee that Danielwill be the primary point of contact. Members were instructed to notify Daniel if they were in need ofhard copy documents. A link to the website will be shared when available.

Ashley reviewed the current schedule and indicated that there should be a draft review by the SWACin June/July. She also expressed that there is some float built into the schedule. Ashley discussed the30-day comment period and mentioned that the committee would be able to review and providecomment then as well, but that it is intended to have the SWAC review the draft plan at least twicebefore the 30-day comment period. Future SWAC meetings are anticipated for June and September.

Ashley briefly explained the Solicitation of Interest (SOI) process to determine disposal capacity andthat the draft SOI has been developed by B&L and the County, and that it is currently under review bythe County solicitor.

Jason inquired about Task 11 - Other Work Items and Ashley explained it as a miscellaneous or otherchapter including items such as the illegal dump survey or Marcellus Shale summaries, or anythingelse that needs to be addressed in the plan that doesn’t fit into another chapter.

Ashley explained that this is a non-substantial plan update, consisting of a 2-3 month review process,and does not require municipal ratification. The plan will be reviewed and edited, as necessary, afterthe comment period and submitted to County Commissioners for adoption prior to DEP approval.

#3 Planning Overview

Ashley discussed the review of the previous plan to determine what to update. She explained that thisis a 10 year planning process, looking out to 2028.

Ashley explained the types of waste to be planned for in the plan include municipal wastes(residential, commercial, special handling, construction and demolition waste). The plan does nothave to plan for residual (Marcellus Shale) or hazardous waste. It is intended to still project out andunderstand capacity for these wastes. Alex expressed the need to address Marcellus Shale wasteand associated radioactive materials.

Ashley provided clarification regarding household hazardous waste (HHW) (including paint andpesticide) as being included in typical curbside collection. She also mentioned the increase in HHWprograms and collections. Household hazardous waste is considered municipal waste, nothazardous, despite its name.

Ashley explained the role of the SWAC as being a sounding board and to convey residential needsand issues. The consultant’s role is to offer ideas, secure capacity, and develop an implementableplan.

#4 Data Gathering

Ashley provided an update on the work that has been performed to-date. Ashley, along with Danieland Ellen, have been collecting background data to develop chapters 1-4 and 6-14. Chapter 5, beingrecommendations, will be developed in the coming months.

Ashley mentioned that the SOI is currently under solicitor review. Scott expressed interest inlengthening the response period due to multiple facilities being involved in the response. A monthwas determined to be an acceptable and targeted timeframe.

Ashley mentioned that surveys have been developed and are being reviewed to send out tomunicipalities, local haulers, ICW generators, and others involved in waste management in April. TheSWAC will review survey results at the next meeting.

#5 Discussion of Important Ideas and Issues

Ashley opened up the discussion to what important ideas or issues the committee sees in the county.She explained that the Recycling Collection and Waste Disposal Initiatives, and Education Initiativesforms would be used to facilitate this discussion. SWAC members were instructed to complete thetwo forms and submit them to Daniel. The rankings from this exercise will help frame chapter 5.

Ellen expressed the County’s limited role in authority and enforcement regarding waste and recyclingand that it’s more municipal and private sector partnership driven. The plan can merely makerecommendations to municipalities. She stated that she views Cleanways as in-betweenmunicipalities and the private sector, offering services to complement, not compete. She explainedthat funding is limited to what is being done at the municipal or private sector level. Ellen citedtransportation and cost issues to being the largest factors prohibiting the expansion of recycling

opportunities in the county. She expressed that these factors be considered when developingrecommendations for the plan.

Alex expressed the desire for model bid specs for multi-municipal cooperation, citing Murrysville-Export as an example. He explained that there is a lack of municipal capacity to produce quality bidspecs. Scott echoed the importance of having model bid specs as guidance and to address changingtimes. Ellen mentioned the greater buying and bargaining power of smaller municipalities when partof multi-municipal agreements.

Alex expressed interest in the data being collected for the plan. Ashley stated that WestmorelandCounty has an average 13% recycling rate and the goal for Pennsylvania is 25-30%. Ellen cited areason for the lower percentage as a lack of participation by residents, not opportunity. Scottexpressed that education is a critical effort.

Ashley indicated that the next meeting date will be set closer to June.

Meeting adjourned at 3:15 pm.

SWAC Meeting #2

Barton & Loguidice

WESTMORELAND COUNTY SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #2

July 17, 2018, 2:00 p.m. 40 N. Pennsylvania Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite 520

Greensburg, PA 15601

AGENDA 1. “Housekeeping” Items Time tracking – sign in and out sheet Track meeting mileage for local grant match “Paperless” Distribution of Materials

https://westmoreland-county-swmp.com/ 2. Waste Projections Current recycling rate Projected recycling rate 3. Recycling Diversion

State Waste Composition Study National Waste Composition Study Markets to Target/What’s realistic

4. Initiatives Exercise

Top Ranked Results from received initiatives Discuss Ranking 5. Survey Results Summary 6. Draft Chapter Review

Draft Chapters will be posted to the website Comments may be submitted electronically to B&L or Westmoreland County (Daniel Carpenter)

7. SOI Responses Review responses Recommendations Memo SWAC to discuss/recommend facilities for inclusion in the Plan Update 8. General Public Comments/ Issues/ Set Next Meeting Date/ Adjournment

Waste Projections(Assumes an increase in recycling over the ten year planning period from 15% in 2017 to 20% in 2030)

Waste Type2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

County Population 362,284 360,841 359,399 357,956 357,635 357,314 356,993 356,672 356,351 355,738 355,125 354,511 353,898 353,285 352,526 351,767 351,008 350,249 349,490

Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons TonsEstimated MSW (not including recyclables) Requiring Disposal 311,237 288,828 285,002 286,547 280,460 280,460 285,598 285,341 285,085 282,294 279,503 276,713 273,922 271,132 268,225 265,317 262,410 260,203 256,596Estimated Recyclables & Organics Diverted 44,469 40,982 38,514 41,690 43,088 49,582 42,090 42,052 42,015 44,242 46,470 48,698 50,925 53,153 55,364 57,574 59,785 61,295 64,206Total Typical MSW, including C&D, and Recyclables 355,706 329,811 323,515 328,238 323,548 330,042 327,688 327,394 327,099 326,536 325,973 325,411 324,848 324,285 323,588 322,891 322,195 321,498 320,801Recyclables Diversion, as a % of Typical MSW (including C&D)+Recycling 13% 12% 12% 13% 13% 15% 13% 13% 13% 14% 14% 15% 16% 16% 17% 18% 19% 19% 20%

Special Handling WasteEstimated Sewage Sludge Generated 20,592 20,834 18,893 19,073 22,422 29,646 21,419 21,400 21,381 21,344 21,307 21,270 21,234 21,197 21,151 21,106 21,060 21,015 20,969Estimated RMW Generated 3,474 2,898 1,748 854 1,082 1,356 1,859 1,858 1,856 1,853 1,850 1,846 1,843 1,840 1,836 1,832 1,828 1,824 1,820Estimated Ash Generated 20 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Estimated Asbestos Generated 2,593 212 375 690 211 329 719 718 717 716 715 714 712 711 710 708 707 705 704Total - All Categories of Special Handling Waste 26,678 23,944 21,016 20,617 23,714 31,331 24,000 23,979 23,957 23,916 23,875 23,834 23,792 23,751 23,700 23,649 23,598 23,547 23,496Total - Typical Municipal Waste + Recycling + Special Handling Waste 382,384 353,755 344,531 348,854 347,263 361,373 351,689 351,373 351,056 350,452 349,848 349,244 348,640 348,036 347,288 346,541 345,793 345,045 344,297Total - All Categories of Municipal Waste (Net of Recycling) 337,915 312,772 306,018 307,164 304,175 311,791 309,599 309,320 309,042 306,210 303,378 300,546 297,715 294,883 291,925 288,966 286,008 283,750 280,092

Total Residual Waste Generated 186,020 134,638 132,086 108,195 113,913 111,446 128,115 128,000 127,885 127,665 127,445 127,225 127,005 126,785 126,512 126,240 125,968 125,695 125,423

Total - Municipal Waste, All Types + Recycling/Organics + Residual Waste 568,404 488,393 476,617 457,049 461,176 472,819 479,804 479,373 478,941 478,117 477,293 476,469 475,645 474,821 473,801 472,781 471,760 470,740 469,720

MSW+Special Handling Waste+C&D 337,915 312,772 306,018 307,164 304,175 311,791 309,599 309,320 309,042 306,210 303,378 300,546 297,715 294,883 291,925 288,966 286,008 283,750 280,092MSW+Special Handling Waste+C&D+Residual 523,935 447,410 438,104 415,359 418,088 423,237 437,714 437,320 436,927 433,875 430,823 427,771 424,719 421,668 418,437 415,206 411,976 409,445 405,515

Year

Waste Projections Steady State(Assumes no increase in recycling over the ten year planning period)

Waste Type2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

County Population 362,284 360,841 359,399 357,956 357,635 357,314 356,993 356,672 356,351 355,738 355,125 354,511 353,898 353,285 352,526 351,767 351,008 350,249 349,490

Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons TonsEstimated MSW (not including recyclables) Requiring Disposal 311,237 288,828 285,002 286,547 280,460 280,460 285,598 285,341 285,085 284,594 284,103 283,613 283,122 282,632 282,025 281,417 280,810 280,203 279,596Estimated Recyclables & Organics Diverted 44,469 40,982 38,514 41,690 43,088 49,582 42,090 42,052 42,015 41,942 41,870 41,798 41,725 41,653 41,564 41,474 41,385 41,295 41,206Total Typical MSW, including C&D, and Recyclables 355,706 329,811 323,515 328,238 323,548 330,042 327,688 327,394 327,099 326,536 325,973 325,411 324,848 324,285 323,588 322,891 322,195 321,498 320,801Recyclables Diversion, as a % of Typical MSW (including C&D)+Recycling 13% 12% 12% 13% 13% 15% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13%

Special Handling WasteEstimated Sewage Sludge Generated 20,592 20,834 18,893 19,073 22,422 29,646 21,419 21,400 21,381 21,344 21,307 21,270 21,234 21,197 21,151 21,106 21,060 21,015 20,969Estimated RMW Generated 3,474 2,898 1,748 854 1,082 1,356 1,859 1,858 1,856 1,853 1,850 1,846 1,843 1,840 1,836 1,832 1,828 1,824 1,820Estimated Ash Generated 20 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Estimated Asbestos Generated 2,593 212 375 690 211 329 719 718 717 716 715 714 712 711 710 708 707 705 704Total - All Categories of Special Handling Waste 26,678 23,944 21,016 20,617 23,714 31,331 24,000 23,979 23,957 23,916 23,875 23,834 23,792 23,751 23,700 23,649 23,598 23,547 23,496Total - Typical Municipal Waste + Recycling + Special Handling Waste 382,384 353,755 344,531 348,854 347,263 361,373 351,689 351,373 351,056 350,452 349,848 349,244 348,640 348,036 347,288 346,541 345,793 345,045 344,297Total - All Categories of Municipal Waste (Net of Recycling) 337,915 312,772 306,018 307,164 304,175 311,791 309,599 309,320 309,042 308,510 307,978 307,446 306,915 306,383 305,725 305,066 304,408 303,750 303,092

Total Residual Waste Generated 186,020 134,638 132,086 108,195 113,913 111,446 128,115 128,000 127,885 127,665 127,445 127,225 127,005 126,785 126,512 126,240 125,968 125,695 125,423

Total - Municipal Waste, All Types + Recycling/Organics + Residual Waste 568,404 488,393 476,617 457,049 461,176 472,819 479,804 479,373 478,941 478,117 477,293 476,469 475,645 474,821 473,801 472,781 471,760 470,740 469,720

MSW+Special Handling Waste+C&D 337,915 312,772 306,018 307,164 304,175 311,791 309,599 309,320 309,042 308,510 307,978 307,446 306,915 306,383 305,725 305,066 304,408 303,750 303,092MSW+Special Handling Waste+C&D+Residual 523,935 447,410 438,104 415,359 418,088 423,237 437,714 437,320 436,927 436,175 435,423 434,671 433,919 433,168 432,237 431,306 430,376 429,445 428,515

Year

Westmoreland County Estimate of the Current Composition of Discarded MunicipalWaste Stream by Material Available for Recovery Based on Statewide RW Beck Study

Material Categories Tons Disposed Mean Composition96,845 32.2%

1 Newspaper 16,843 5.6%2 Corrugated Cardboard 22,858 7.6%3 Office 9,324 3.1%4 Magazine/Glossy 6,617 2.2%5 Polycoated/Aseptic Conta iners 1,504 0.5%6 Mixed Paper 14,136 4.7%7 Non-recyclable Paper 25,565 8.5%

33,384 11.1%8 #1 PET Bottles 3,308 1.1%9 #2 HDPE Bottles 2,707 0.9%

10 #3-#7 Bottl es 902 0.3%11 Expanded Polystyrene 2,105 0.7%12 Fi lm Plastic 14,136 4.7%13 Other Rigid Plastic 10,226 3.4%

6,015 2.0%14 Clear Glass 3,308 1.1%15 Green Glass 602 0.2%16 Amber Glass 1,203 0.4%17 Non-recyclable Glass 902 0.3%

20,452 6.8%18 Steel Cans 3,609 1.2%19 Aluminum Cans 1,504 0.5%20 Other Ferrous 11,730 3.9%21 Other Aluminum 1,805 0.6%22 Other Non-Ferrous 1,805 0.6%

103,461 34.4%23 Yard Waste - Grass 9,324 3.1%24 Yard Waste - Other 9,023 3.0%25 Wood - Unpainted 14,436 4.8%26 Wood - Pa inted 9,925 3.3%27 Food Waste 32,482 10.8%28 Texti les 12,632 4.2%29 Diapers 9,023 3.0%30 Fines 2,707 0.9%31 Other organics 3,910 1.3%

40,302 13.4%32 Electronics 4,812 1.6%33 Carpet 5,113 1.7%34 Drywal l 3,008 1.0%35 Other C&D 13,233 4.4%36 HHW 902 0.3%37 Other Inorganics 12,632 4.2%38 Furni ture 602 0.2%

Total 300,760 100%

Inorganics

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metals

Organics

1992.001.001/7.18 1 Barton Loguidice, D.P.C.

Westmoreland County Estimate of the Current Composition of Discarded MunicipalWaste Stream by Material Available for Recovery Based on EPA National Study

Material Categories Tons Disposed Mean CompositionPaper 42,106 14.0%Plastic 57,144 19.0%Glass 15,038 5.0%Metals 27,068 9.0%

147,372 49.0%Yard Trimmings 24,061 8.0%Wood 24,061 8.0%Food Waste 66,167 22.0%Rubber,leather and textiles 33,084 11.0%

Inorganics 12,030 4.0%Total 300,760 100%

Organics

1692.001.001/3.15 1 Barton Loguidice, D.P.C.

Westmoreland County SWAC Meeting #2

Tuesday, July 17, 2018 at 2:00 pm.

40 North Pennsylvania Ave.

Fifth Floor – Suite 520

Greensburg, PA 15601

Meeting Minutes

In attendance were:

Kathy Hamilton – Westmoreland Conservation District

Brad Cunningham – PA DEP

Russ Salandro – Salandro’s Refuse

Jack Brown – Westmoreland Community Action

Joe Kulik – Elliott Co.

Brian Lawrence – Planning and Development

Alex Graziani – Penn Township

Wayne Jones – City of Latrobe

Jason Rigone – Planning and Development

Valerie Morton – Irwin Borough

Scott Dellinger – Waste Management

Ellen Keefe – Westmoreland Cleanways

Keith Ashley – Ligonier Township

Daniel Carpenter – Planning and Development

Ashley Duncan, P.E. – Barton and Loguidice

#1 “Housekeeping” Items

The meeting was started at 2:04 pm by Ashley who gave a brief welcome and instructed members to

account for their time and travel on the sign-in sheet for grant purposes. She also notified the

committee that a website dedicated to the plan would be live by the end of the week. The website will

allow for “paperless” distribution of materials including: agendas, meeting minutes, attachments, list of

committee members, draft chapters, appendices, etc. Website link: https://westmoreland-county-

swmp.com/

#2 Waste Projections

Ashley explained two waste and recycling projection scenarios for the planning period: current

recycling rate (no increase), and projected recycling rate (increasing from 15% to 20% in an attempt

to move closer towards the state goal of 35%). She stated that in order to shift our recycling rate of

15% to 20%, it would require removing approximately 23,000 tons of recyclables from the waste

stream, recycling those materials instead of sending them to landfills.

#3 Recycling Diversion

Ashley continued to explain that in order to see an increase in recycling, certain recycling streams will

need to be identified and targeted. She also touched on market variability, citing the current situation

with China and the types of materials being recycled and their cleanliness.

Ashley presented two charts (state and national) showing the amount of recyclables currently going to

landfills or transfer stations. The discussion focused on the state chart, highlighting paper and

organics as being the two largest categories.

Brian inquired about yard waste and programing, and Alex suggested the need for municipal

cooperation. Jason asked if any comparisons have been made between Westmoreland and other

counties in the region and the state, and Ashley indicated that can certainly be investigated. Ashley

explained that often times, equipment, capacity, and land will dictate what streams to target. She

suggested targeting corrugated cardboard, office paper, and yard waste.

Scott discussed the difference in targeted approach as a percentage versus environmental need. He

also spoke about the cost/benefit of targeted streams and programing. Brad and Doug explained the

challenges and need regarding glass. The group continued to discuss the need for better recycling

education and standardization.

#4 Initiatives Exercise

Ashley reviewed and discussed the results from the initiatives exercise and explained that she will

work with the county to determine what items of the top level priorities, as identified by the committee,

the plan will focus on for the ten-year planning period. The group can continue to review and respond

with requested actions or initiatives.

#5 Survey Results Summary

Ashley stated that there was a pretty good response rate for the surveys, but she may follow up with

waste and recycling haulers and municipalities.

Keith inquired about how many municipalities utilize single-hauler waste and recycling service. He

also discussed the economic benefits of combined and contracted waste and recycling. Ashley stated

that sample contracts will be included as part of the plan. Scott mentioned that multiple vendors can

participate in contracted collections. Ellen commented on the need for political will regarding non-

mandated communities and recycling efforts.

Surveys will be posted to the website for further review.

Ashley followed with the caveat that the survey summaries include exact responses.

#6 Draft Chapter Review

Ashley indicated that the draft chapters of the plan will be available on the website for review and

editing. Comments or revisions can be submitted to Ashley or Daniel. Dates for review will be

provided.

#7 SOI Responses

All SOI respondents present for the meeting were dismissed so that Ashley could review the

responses and provide recommendations to the group. 15 landfills and 4 transfer stations responded

to the SOI. Ashley informed the committee of some minor deficiencies regarding two of the

responses. She provided statements recommending that all 15 landfills and 4 transfer stations be

included in the plan. Her recommendations memo will be finalized and posted to the website.

Alex inquired about Triumvirate and how/where they fit into the plan. Ashley confirmed discussions

with Daniel regarding including Triumvirate and Max Environmental in the plan. Ashley explained that

the SOI did not go out to these facilities due to the nature of waste and services. A simplified

submission to these facilities will be pursued. Joe and Alex provided further detail on Triumvirate’s

operations.

Ellen asked what transfer stations responded to the SOI and what did they respond to.

Ashley asked the group if further review was necessary for the SOI responses and recommendations.

The committee agreed upon and accepted Ashley’s recommendations.

Ashley explained that due to a revised and extended schedule, the next meeting date will be in

September or October. Daniel will provide the date.

Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

SWAC Meeting #3