Our Position on Montgomery County’s Trash Overhaul Plans
Your voice matters. County leaders are considering the timeline for closing the Dickerson incinerator. Please urge the Council to keep the closure process moving and end trash burning in Dickerson for good.
Updated May 14, 2026
On May 6, the Montgomery County Council voted to postpone until late summer or early fall any discussion and decision to stop burning the Montgomery County’s trash and instead transport it to well-vetted landfills.
The proposal was communicated to the County Council in November and the full plan was presented to them in March by County Executive Marc Elrich in his annual budget proposal.
Council President Natali Fani-Gonzalez spearheaded the delay. She argued that the Council needs more (and more “independent”) information about the transition to landfills and could not focus on the details of the issue amid contentious budget decisions on other matters.
We appreciate that this year’s county budget deliberations are particularly fraught. But we do not agree with Ms. Fani-Gonzalez that a delay was necessary on the waste management decision. Indeed, we support Mr. Elrich’s plan and budget proposal for the waste transition. That plan was formulated after almost two years of detailed analysis by the County’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The core of the plan is simple: over a period of six to nine months Montgomery County would stop burning its non-recyclable trash (600,000 tons a year) and instead truck that trash to out of state landfills that meet a host of environmental and safety requirements. The actual hauling would be done by a private waste management company. DEP put out an RFP (request for proposal) from such companies in September 2025; it received several replies in November. But any contract awaits a final decision by the Council as to the budget for this sizable project.
Truck hauling of trash to the nation’s roughly 3,000 landfills is by far the most common waste management system in the U.S. It accounts for the disposal of 65% of trash after recyclable and compostable material is diverted from the “waste stream.” The technology has vastly improved over the past decade, by all accounts, though landfills differ from one another in how they operate.
Under Elrich’s plan, Reworld, the private company that operates the incinerator (located in Dickerson), would have been informed in July that the facility would be shuttered by the end of December. (That 6-month notice is required under the facility’s contract.)
Why does the incinerator need to be closed?
Because it’s the largest single source of pollution—including climate-altering greenhouse gases—in the county. And has been for years.
Because we have been dumping 150,000 tons the toxic ash from the incinerator on a majority Black community in Virginia—putting them at far greater risk than if we landfilled our unburned trash in one of the vetted landfills the County has chosen.
Because it’s 30 years old and has begun to require costly maintenance; most incinerators are shuttered after about 25 years. And most have been shut down nationwide over the last three decades with only one new one built.
And because serious problems have recently occurred. In September 2025, an annual emissions test revealed that the incinerator had been emitting nearly double the permitted limit—and 21 times more than in tests a year ago—of the deadliest chemicals known to science, dioxin and furans. In December, a second breakdown occurred, releasing 50 times the already toxic emissions. There’s no safe emissions limit established for these chemicals. (See links below to our press releases on this issue.)
Timelines could vary for incinerator closure
The Council’s delay would put off any action on the incinerator until at least 2027. If, however, the Council honors a proposal to delay the decision for only three months, the transition could still begin relatively soon. For example, if the Council reaches a decision by the middle of August, notice could be given to Reworld in early September. That would mean closure of the incinerator in March 2027.
The trash hauling company would have to be on the same schedule, of course.
It is unclear how committed Council President Fani Gonzalez is to limiting the delay to three months. On April 30, in a letter to council members, she proposed that an office within the Council (the Office of Legislative Oversight, or OLO), along with other Council staff, “prepare a comprehensive report to guide the Council’s decision making on long-term solid waste disposal options when we take this up in the fall.”
The letter goes on to specify the kind of analyses she wants. Much of it would duplicate what DEP has already done. (See a copy of the letter here.)
Moreover, the timeframe of “the fall” would undermine any effort to reach a decision by the end of August. Indeed, it opens the door for further delay if the OLO analysis falls short of expectations or is at odds with the DEP’s findings and proposal.
DEP chief Jennifer Macedonia told the Council on May 6 that any delay beyond the end of summer would likely result in a need for a second RFP process since so much time will have passed since November 2025 (amid rising prices for gas, and other increases).
Election-year, higher costs, and an evolving food scrap program in the mix
All of this would also be happening in an election year that will yield a new County Executive and new Council members for 2028 through 2031.
At a May 6 full Council budget discussion, several council members said it would be a serious abrogation of the current Council’s responsibility if the waste management issue was left undone and passed on to the next County Executive and Council.
We agree and would further observe that such a delay—which could last a year or more—would put the County at risk for higher costs associated with keeping the incinerator operating.
DEP has compared costs and other factors connected with the current (trash burning) system and announced early this year their judgment that a transition to landfilling is the best path forward in terms of public health, the environment, promoting a reduction in the volume of waste, and long-term costs.
Reworld estimated last year that it could cost $100 million or more to keep the incinerator operating safely and efficiently for another five to seven years.
Notably, County Executive Elrich and Council President Fani-Gonzalez do not disagree about everything concerning the County’s waste management future. Both support a technology called “advanced waste processing,” or AWP. AWP enhances the extraction of recyclable and organic material from the waste stream—before it goes to landfill or burning. The technology can reduce the volume of leftover trash by as much as 40%, and nearly eliminate the organic material going to landfill—which can generate methane gas.
But here’s the rub. Fani-Gonzalez has stated that she doesn’t have enough information about AWP technology, and may not agree to move forward with the transition to landfill until an AWP plan is finalized. These two decisions do not need to be, nor should they be, linked. Straight landfilling is a far safer and more cost-effective solution than burning. AWP can be discussed and decided on independently at a future date.
In addition, both leaders (as well as almost all the current council members) agree on the benefits of removing food scraps from the waste stream through a program that would collect it from commercial and residential properties. The material would be composted. That program, too, would take time to put in place, and many years to reach its full potential.
Food scraps and other organics comprise about 20% of the current volume of waste. The County in 2025 allocated $28 million to initiate this program. Three residential food scrap collection pilots are already underway. The aim is to have an expanded program substantially up and running in 2029.
Two other pieces of the waste puzzle are also widely supported: (a) recycling so-called “C&D” (construction and demolition) materials in lieu of burning or burying it, and (b) “Save-As-You-Throw”—a payment plan that would allow residents to recycle as much as they want and pay a variable amount based on the volume of actual trash they generate, much the way we now pay for our electricity usage. DEP is currently conducting a pilot for this program as well.
OUR POSITION
The Council should adhere to a three-month time limit on the delay in reaching a decision on waste management. The OLO study should be scrapped, or focused narrowly on only essential questions, and completed by the end of July.
The Council should vote to transition to trash truck hauling starting no later than the end of September. The incinerator should be shuttered for good by March 2027.
This action will dramatically reduce the harmful emissions released in our air and the risk of contamination from future breakdowns at the facility. It will also end the shameful 30-year practice of dumping the toxic ash the incinerator produces (after burning) on a minority community in Virginia. (See link here for letter from Virginia NAACP decrying this practice.)
ADDITIONAL FACTS
SCA vetted 42 landfills in the region with strict environmental justice (EJ) criteria and found many that have minimal impact on both the nearby population and the surrounding environment. The DEP has chosen landfills that meet these criteria. Toxic emissions from our incinerator that can harm human health are 2.5 to 5 times worse than the vetted landfills.
Almost all modern landfills capture methane gas. Even with food scraps going to landfill, the greenhouse gas emissions would be around 40% lower than burning trash in Dickerson.
Switching to zero waste strategies and landfill provide direct incentives to lower trash volume where burning does not. No matter the volume, the County pays Reworld the same amount to burn. Conversely, if we landfill our trash, we will only pay for the amount we send. As waste diversion and recycling increases, our costs will drop.
The volume of trash going annually to landfill from Montgomery County could be reduced (over time) to an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 tons a year (from 600,000 tons a year currently) with far less environmental and health impact, no more toxic chemicals being released into the air and no more risk of massive emissions exceedances.
CRITICAL UPDATES
Background
This link will take you to a recent Maryland Matters commentary by SCA’s vice president Lauren Greenberger on this issue.
This link will take you to a detailed rebuttal of a report written by two members of the advocacy group Friends of Sligo Creek that suggested that continuing to incinerate might be the best course of action.
This link will take you to an article that appeared in the Spring 2025 issue of PLENTY magazine. The article, written by SCA President Steven Findlay and Vice President Lauren Greenberger, has relevant background information on this issue.
Addendum: SCA’s role in composting food scraps
SCA has some legal authority over the proposed expansion of the County’s yard waste compost facility in Dickerson. This dates back to a legal settlement in the 1990s after the County broke environmental rules in our area.
The County proposes expanding the compost facility to accommodate the addition of food scraps to the existing mix of yard waste the facility now processes. The expansion would significantly increase the volume of compostable material at the facility.
Food scraps would be removed from the waste stream and mixed with yard waste at the Shady Grove transfer facility. The resultant mix would be shipped to Dickerson for final processing. The end result would be an enhanced version of a soil enrichment product (Leafgro®) that the County sells in the open market. The product is popular with farmers, gardeners and homeowners.
The County already encourages food scrap composting from restaurants and grocery stores, and has three pilot residential pick-up projects. The County Council in 2025 allocated $28 million to implement the expansion of the Dickerson facility.
SCA is in active negotiations with the County about the expansion. But many questions remain to be answered by DEP about how the facility will be expanded and operate, and the impact on the community.
The County and SCA have so far agreed to consider such an expansion if: (a) the incinerator is shuttered and (b) the County provides SCA and the community with a detailed operational plan and agrees to mutually acceptable terms of implementation and operation. We expect to receive a draft of that plan soon. The community will have an opportunity to air concerns and ask questions of County officials.