County Council Continues Deliberations on the Future of the Dickerson Incinerator
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 September 26, 2026
On September 15, the County Council convened the first of their work sessions to better understand solid waste management options for the County.
The Department of Environmental Protection gave an overview of the options which included these four possibilities:
Continue to burn our trash and ship the ash to an out-of-state landfill.
Close the Incinerator and ship our trash to an out-of-state landfill vetted with environmental justice criteria.
Close the Incinerator, partner with a private firm to build an advanced waste processing facility to extract recyclables and stabilize organics from our trash and send residuals to landfill.
Continue to incinerate trash but also pair it with an advanced waste processing facility.
Questions Raised at the September 15 Work Session
Councilmembers raised numerous questions during the September 15 session, but there was not enough time to explore all questions fully.
SCA collected many of those questions and prepared a new memo addressing several of the issues that we believe are central to the discussion, including:
The types of landfills Montgomery County currently uses and could use if incineration ends
The comparative costs of continued incineration and landfill disposal
Environmental and health considerations associated with the different waste-management strategies
Questions surrounding the County’s potential transition away from the Dickerson facility
Here is the memo we sent to Councilmembers: SCA Memo after September 15 Work Session
In Summary
Incineration is far more harmful then landfilling residual trash.
The greenhouse gases produced by an incinerator are far greater then the greenhouse gases (mostly methane) that are produced by the landfills the DEP is considering.
Even with trucking the ash, the incinerator emissions are far greater then landfilling.
There is no good solution for disposing of the toxic ash the incinerator produces. Currently, the ash is sent to Virginia for disposal in a densely populated, majority black community. Even if we sent it to a remote landfill, it would still be more toxic for that community than receiving unburned trash. The closest monofill for ash is in northeast Connecticut.
The landfill communities that the DEP is considering for disposing of our trash are in remote locations and meet environmental justice criteria. This will cause far less harm then we are currently causing to the community that receives our ash.
If we stop incinerating, we can save $300 to $500 million in up-keep costs for the aging incinerator.
We can then invest in waste reduction strategies such as food composting, construction and demolition recycling and advanced waste processing to extract further recyclables from the waste stream and stabilize any residual organics before sending it to landfill.
What Happens Next
The Council’s next work session is Tuesday, September 29 at 9:30 a.m. The session will focus specifically on the Dickerson incinerator. Representatives of Reworld, which operates the incinerator, and the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which contracts with Reworld on the County’s behalf, are expected to participate and present their perspectives on the facility’s current and potential future operations. DEP and Council staff will also participate.
We encourage residents who are interested in this issue to follow the September 29 session, either in-person at the County Council Office Building in Rockville or online through the County Council website.
The timing matters. A decision on the future of the incinerator will affect contracts, capital investments, and the County’s waste-management system for many years to come. SCA will continue following the Council’s deliberations closely and sharing updates as the process moves forward.
BACKGROUND and CONTEXT
The core of DEP’s 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 from such companies in September 2025; it received several replies in November 2025. The details of those replies are not public since assessment of them is protected under the County’s purchasing and contracting rules. (Nevertheless, several Councilmembers asked again at the July 28 session if some way can be found around those rules, especially with regard to the actual out-of-state landfills that may be used.).
DEP presented summaries and key option points to Councilmembers and the public at a series of open houses this past Spring.
It is worth reiterating here that 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 and how environmentally fortified they are.
WHY DOES THE INCINERATOR NEED TO BE CLOSED?
Quite simply: because it’s the largest single source of pollution—including climate-altering greenhouse gases—in the county and has been for years. Also, because:
Montgomery County for decades has 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.
The trash incinerator is 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.
Estimates range up to $300 million dollars on capital improvements and maintenance to keep the incinerator safely and efficiently running for another 7 to 10 years.
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.)
WHAT IS ADVANCED WASTE PROCESSING (AWP) AND WHEN CAN IT BE DEPLOYED?
Aside from issues of cost, logistics, and choosing a trash transport company, no other issue looms as large as whether new recycling and waste management technology could be and should be deployed before transitioning to truck-haul-to-landfill, or after a truck haul program is put in place and the incinerator is shuttered.
The objective of AWP is to meaningfully reduce the waste stream, no matter whether its burned or buried. (Though, with truck haul the incentive to reduce the amount of waste is much stronger because cost is per ton while no such arrangement exists with the incinerator; same cost no matter the volume of trash. )
The timing issue here is critical because, depending on the technologies chosen, AWP techniques could take years to implement, and decisions about costly equipment will be necessary. If the Council chooses to do AWP in advance, that would delay truck haul and closing the incinerator.
SCA has taken a clear position on this issue, and DEP leans in this direction, too: AWP should not be done in advance but phased in after landfill hauling has begun. DEP has issued an RFP to AWP companies with replies expected in September.
FOOD SCRAPS
Food scraps and other organic material (like paper products) comprise about 20% of the current volume of our county’s waste. Several Councilmembers on July 28 reiterated their strong support for a robust program to divert food scraps from the waste stream. Others expressed skepticism that a curbside pick-up program could be easily or rapidly implemented. A pilot program run by the county has existed for years.
But the main debate over such a program is where it will be sited. Where would the food scraps be sent and processed? In 2025, the Council allocated $28 million to DEP (over multiple years) to study and then initiate this program. The aim is to have an expanded program substantially up and running in 2029.
DEP’s analysis has concluded that the least costly and most efficient site is for food scraps to go to the County’s yard trim compost facility in Dickerson, which would be expanded and retooled to accept them and mix that material with yard trim. Such programs exist elsewhere and are successful, though varying technologies come into play.
SCA plays a pivotal role in decisions about the expansion of the 100-acre yard trim facility.
Owing to past County infractions at the Dickerson industrial site, we have a legal agreement with the county around the scope and various operations of the facility. The county needs our approval to expand it.
We have been in discussions with DEP officials for over a year on how this might proceed, as DEP has studied the issue. One concrete outcome to date: DEP now concurs with SCA’s position that the incinerator must be closed before SCA agrees to the food scrap program and expansion—subject also to a range of details about how the expansion would occur and with what restrictions and guardrails to protect the environment and community.
Several Councilmembers, however, raised questions about the compost facility expansion, and especially whether it would be better sited elsewhere and perhaps decentralized. DEP officials stated their position that any of that would cost more money and not take advantage of the known and quantifiable advantages of an existing facility that has been operating well for decades.
OTHER PIECES OF THE PUZZLE
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 them, 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 decision on waste management.
The Council should vote to transition to trash truck hauling starting in early 2027.
The incinerator should be shuttered for good by June 2027.
AWP should come after landfill hauling is initiated.
These actions 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.
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 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 Vice President Steven Findlay and 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.