Our Position on the County’s Trash Overhaul Plans
Updated June 9, 2025
Note: Below is an updated report on the status of Montgomery County’s waste management overhaul project. We will be updating this piece frequently in coming months. This link will take you to an article in the Spring 2025 issue of PLENTY magazine on the County’s trash overall plans. That article was written by SCA President Steven Findlay and Vice President Lauren Greenberger several months ago and contains relevant information and background on this issue.
Montgomery County continues to deliberate over the best way to: (a) reduce the volume of its trash; (b) recycle more; (c) divert food scraps to compost; and (d) shutter its aging and polluting trash incinerator.
SCA supports this initiative. But we’re frustrated with how long it’s taking to develop a coherent plan and implement it. Discussion and analyses have been underway for almost 2 years.
Granted, it’s a complex project. Many cities and counties struggle with disposing of their trash in an environmentally sound and cost-effective way. Montgomery County has the added burden of its incinerator, situated in Dickerson. Most of the county’s trash is transported there and burned.
Since 1980, 160 incinerators in the U.S. have been shuttered; only 63 remain in operation. The Dickerson incinerator is now 30 years old and requires constant costly maintenance. Most incinerators get decommissioned at around their 25 th year unless local officials close them down sooner—which is not uncommon.
The Dickerson incinerator is the worst single source of air pollution and greenhouse gases in the county—emitting toxic pollutants and some 600,000 tons per year of CO2 equivalent into our region and the planet’s air. The pollutants—dioxin, furans, lead, mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulate matter—are associated with various respiratory ailments, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer.
In the 1970s, 80s, and 90s burning trash to produce energy seemed like a great idea. Landfills deservedly had a bad reputation and landfill space was thought to be limited. New companies, branded as “waste-to-energy,” promised clean facilities. Many state and local politicians and environmental advocates bought into the concept. The lure of killing two birds with one stone was strong—diverting trash from dirty landfills while producing needed energy.
The technology did get better during those decades. But in subsequent years, evidence accumulated that the concept and designs of incinerators had inherent flaws. For one, incinerators never produced substantial amounts of energy. And they are among the dirtiest forms of energy production, even worse than coal plants. Incinerators are also initially expensive to build and, as they age, they become more polluting and less efficient.
Pressured by environmental groups (including SCA) over the past 15 years, Montgomery County leaders pledged numerous times to shutter the incinerator as soon as possible. So, it was a bit of a shock when county officials announced last November they had extended the contract with the organization that operates the incinerator for another 5 years—from April 2026 to April 2031 since the current contract is in force until April 2026.
Notably, and relevant to what follows, the county has an option for early termination of the new contract.
County officials say the main reason for extending the contract is that trash incineration cannot be terminated until (a) waste reduction strategies, (b) technological enhancements, and (c) alternatives means of trash disposal are substantially built-out and fully implemented. The county’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has emphasized to county lawmakers that would take a minimum 5 years (after the end of the current contract, so in 2031).
SCA has pushed for an alternative path that could close the incinerator sooner, even as the waste system is modernized and the volume of trash reduced. Namely, we have suggested the following:
Make no major investments in an incinerator that will be decommissioned
Issue an RFP (request for proposal) to identify potential contractors and the costs to send the county’s trash by rail or truck (or both) to landfills that meet the highest environmental standards
Issue a second RFP for a contractor to recycle all our construction and demolition waste
Aggressively and urgently pursue waste reduction through enhanced recycling, food scrap composting and a county-wide effort (with financial incentives) to compel citizens to recycle more and reduce what they throw away
Allow the Dickerson yard trim composting facility to incorporate food scraps, after the plans and impact of this change are fully vetted with SCA and the local community (See more about this below.)
Modernize and renovate the existing waste processing facilities in Derwood and Dickerson as needed.
Incineration vs. Landfills
Studies dating back years show that incineration is more hazardous and harmful to human health than landfilling as practiced today in most locations, even when the negative impact of long-haul trucking is taken into consideration. In addition, the Dickerson incinerator’s continued operation adversely affects a majority Black community near Richmond Virginia where 150,000 tons of toxic ash from the incinerator are dumped every year.
But, not unexpectedly, some county officials and citizens have concerns about landfilling. It’s beyond the scope of this web post to explore in depth the pros and cons of trash landfills versus trash burning. That’s complex and there’s lots of research and commentary online. Every community’s choice is dependent on its own situation. For example, in some small and densely populated northern European countries, incineration remains popular because landfill space is very limited.
In Montgomery County, some elected officials are worried that sending trash outside the county is a bad thing to do. We understand the concern but think it’s misplaced. Their primary concern should be the continued risk to human health posed by the incinerator. Also:
As mentioned above: the county already sends approximately 150,000 tons of toxic incinerator ash out-of-state
Sending unburned trash to well-managed landfills in less populated communities would be safer for any community (usual rural areas) receiving it than toxic ash.
Most landfills today are much better regulated and operated than even 5 years ago.
Almost all are private businesses managed for profit. Indeed, interstate hauling of trash is a common practice and a big business throughout the U.S.
The Latest Machinations
Montgomery County hired two contractors in 2023 to analyze the county’s current waste system and alternatives. The primary contractor, Arcadis, released a final report in May 2025. (Other background information and explanations on the county’s “zero waste” goals can be found on this county website.) The exhaustive Arcadis report (and exhausting given that it’s full of jargon and not really meant to be read by the public) concludes that in terms of efficiency, reduction of greenhouse gases, reducing the waste stream and other criteria, a system called MRBT (Material Recovery and Biological Treatment…Google it) exceeds other options, including keeping the incinerator operating long term.
There’s one big problem, however. A full-scale MRBT system to process all of Montgomery County’s waste would be very expensive. Depending on the scope of the MRBT elements built, initial capital expenditures for such a system could run $300 to $900 million over 7 to 10 years. (For context: the county will spend $142 million on trash services in 2025, $132 million of which is offset with fees on businesses and citizens, the proceeds from selling recycled material, and its cut of the sale of the energy the incinerator produces.)
That eye-popping MRBT cost caught County Council members by surprise this spring, especially since they’d yet to receive the final Arcadis report that would provide a rationale for adopting such a pricey system.
Amid the release of that report and a 2026 county budget that includes a significant one-time capital expenditure ($35.5 million) on the incinerator, both the County Executive, Marc Elrich, and the County Council are now looking more earnestly at alternatives.
The county is preparing an RFP to transition over the next few years to a system under which all the county’s unrecycled and un-composted trash would be hauled to out-of-state landfills. In such a system, the incinerator would be shuttered forever. Preliminary estimates by county consultants indicate that implementing such a system could take as little as two years. Complexity would arise, however, if the county chooses to adopt some MRBT elements simultaneously, with the aim of enhancing its recycling rate and efficiency. In addition, the county knows it must upgrade its waste facilities in Derwood and Dickerson.
County officials decline to estimate a timeframe or cost for such a transition. They await proposals from waste management firms, will scrutinize them, and assess costs and feasibility against the other options.
It thus remains possible that the landfill alternative could be rejected, or even that county lawmakers would choose to stick with trash burning for the foreseeable future.
In the sum-up words of one county official who did not want to be identified: “Any transition is going to be really big and complex with many moving parts…we want to do what’s best and what taxpayers can afford…closing the incinerator is a priority, though.”
SCA’s Role
SCA has been a part of the county’s deliberations on the issue of waste management for many years, along with our advocacy colleagues at Zero Waste Montgomery County. The county also has a 15-member advisory group called the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC.) SCA’s vice president, Lauren Greenberger, serves on that committee.
At the request of the County Executive in 2020, SCA funded a study on alternatives to incineration. That report—Beyond Incineration—concluded that long-haul trucking or rail-hauling to one or more vetted landfills would be safer than continuing to burn trash and truck toxic ash to Virginia.
Also, legal agreements SCA reached in the 1990’s with the county (following several lawsuits) grant SCA some oversight of the county’s 50-acre yard trim compost facility. We are pleased to be a partner in this well-managed operation.
In 2023, the County approached SCA with the idea to expand the compost facility to include food scraps, which comprise almost one fifth of the trash the county burns. The scraps would be mixed with ground-up yard trim (leaves, grass, etc.). In aerated static piles under closed-cover, the mix would be slowly turned into a nutrient-rich soil additive—an enhancement to Leafgro, the County’s popular commercial product made now from leaves and yard trim (and which the county sells to garden and farming supply companies).
The County Council voted to approve this expansion plan and allocated $28 million in 2024 to start building it out. On June 17, the County Council will take up a special bill that will “activate” that funding and begin the planning for the project and the purchase of initial equipment. The measure is expected to pass.
SCA has asked to see the full plans for the project before we approve this expansion of operations. We have also asked the county to formally and publicly commit to a date for incinerator closure – a date of their choosing.
The reason for this second request: the history, dating back 10 years, of county leaders promising such a closure and then reneging on that pledge. At this point, in our view, a firm commitment is owed to all county residents, not just those who live near the incinerator.
As of June 9, we have not seen the county’s initial plans for the compost facility or entered into any detailed discussions with county officials. Emails have been exchanged which indicate that could begin soon. We’ll keep you informed.