Our Position on the County’s “Zero Waste” Plans
Updated February 7, 2025
On Jan. 28, SCA shared its perspective on the County’s waste management plans at a briefing before the County Council. At the invitation from the Council’s new president, Kate Stewart, we shared the floor with the County’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
It was a welcome opportunity to again state our opposition to the County Executive’s and DEP’s plan, announced on Nov. 25, 2024, to continue burning trash at the County’s incinerator in Dickerson for up to eight more years—rather than shutting the incinerator down in April 2026 as has been pledged for some years.
At the same time, we restated our strong support for DEP’s overall initiative to remake its waste management systems over the next decade. That initiative includes enhanced recycling, an effort to compost all the county’s food scraps (commercial and home), a simultaneous roll out of unit pricing for residential trash (pay only for what you throw away), and new processes and technologies to reduce the amount of garbage currently being burned in the trash incinerator in Dickerson.
On Nov. 25, County officials said they have authorized the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority (an entity that manages the County’s waste disposal) to extend for 5 years (from April 2026 to April 2031, and on an “emergency” basis) its contract with the private company Reworld (formerly known as Covanta), which operates the incinerator.
The announcement states that the County has the “option for early termination” of the contract. A planning timeline on the county website indicates, however, that decommissioning would not begin until 2030 with full closure not until 2031 or even 2032. DEP officials on Jan 28 affirmed that timeline to the Council. (SCA has not been granted access to the terms of the contract or the clause/section that would allow early termination.)
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, such as landfilling are substantially built-out and fully implemented. DEP claims that would take a minimum 5 years and more likely 6 to 7 years.
At the Jan 28 Council briefing, Lauren Greenberger, SCA’s Vice President, presented an alternative path that could allow the incinerator to be shuttered in 3 years (by the end of 2027). (See Lauren’s statement here.) We recommend the following:
Flesh out the County's contingency plan for incinerator closure. This would focus on immediate hauling of trash from Shady Grove to an acceptable landfill, and rolling out the infrastructure improvements as recommended by the County consultants over time.
Make no major investments in the incinerator that will soon be decommissioned.
Allow a one- to two-year contract extension and follow the timeline that Zero Waste Associates provided to meet all contractual and legal obligations to change from incineration to landfilling.
Issue an RFP as soon as possible to identify potential contractors and the costs to long-haul from Shady Grove to specified acceptable landfills under long-term contracts.
Set a firm date for closure that will allow the Dickerson Yard Trim Composting Facility to be expanded to receive food scraps quickly and in the most cost-effective manner.
In addition, and in tandem, set up a system over the next 3 years to:
Aggressively 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
Onboard new waste separation and recycling technologies on an emergency basis, with dedicated funding from the Council
Modify, modernize and renovate the existing waste processing facilities in Derwood and Dickerson as needed, with dedicated funding from the Council
According to two reports commissioned by the County Executive in recent years, such an approach would be less harmful to human health and likely less costly over time. (See Beyond Incineration report here.)
According to those and other studies, incineration is more hazardous than landfilling as practiced today, even when the negative impact of trucking is taken into consideration. In addition, the incinerator’s continued operation adversely affects a majority Black community in Virginia where 150,000 tons of toxic ash from the incinerator is dumped every year.
Brief History
The Dickerson trash incinerator has been operating for nearly 30 years (since 1995). It 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 forms of cancer, respiratory ailments, and cardiovascular diseases. (See also here.) A report issued by the Montgomery County Department of Health in 2018 found higher levels of cancer and respiratory illness in two census tracts surrounding the Dickerson incinerator, though the data do not constitute proof that the incinerator was responsible.
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 operating 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 landfills while producing energy.
As a result, some 230 trash incinerators were built in the United States between 1975 and 1995. The technology did get better over those 20 years. 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 are among the dirtiest form of energy production, often worse than burning coal. Incinerators are also expensive to build and operate, and, as they age they become more polluting and less efficient.
Since 1980, 160 incinerators have been shuttered as a direct result of such problems. Sixty-three remain in operation. The average age at closure of the 53 incinerators shuttered since 2000 is 26. The Dickerson facility was the second-to-last new incinerator built in the U.S. The lone exception built after 1995: an incinerator in Southern Florida where landfill space is sparse and groundwater problems are challenging.
What happened? Simply put, communities and counties no longer want or accept trash incinerators. Instead, they have shifted to well-run landfills operating with new technologies that have reduced adverse environmental impacts.
The Dickerson facility also has been plagued by poor maintenance. It has had more fires than any other Covanta/Reworld facility and would need an estimated $50 to $100 million in investments if the County keeps it operating past 2026.
The County’s Evolving Policy
Pressured by environmental groups (including SCA) over the past decade, Montgomery County leaders have pledged numerous times to shutter the incinerator as soon as possible. In particular, County Executive Marc Elrich made such promises while serving on the County Council from 2006 to 2018, while campaigning for the County’s top government job in 2017, and during his first term in office (2018-2022). (See Elrich’s 2018 letter on closing the incinerator in 12 to 18 months here.)
With the Nov. 25, 2024 press release, Elrich and his administration have formally modified—many would say reneged on—his pledge to shutter the incinerator as planned.
We believe the Elrich administration and DEP have shifted their position without taking possible alternative paths into account. They also may be minimizing ongoing hazards to the County, as well as the incinerator’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The County’s consultants have “modeled out” options for truck and rail haul to landfills, but even the simplest option—trucking trash from Shady Grove directly to a landfill – they estimate would take 7 years to transition from incineration. During those 7 years, their plans envision choosing, building and implementing waste reduction strategies. They have also stated that incinerator closure would be dependent on these waste reduction strategies being operational before such hauling could even begin.
Our view is that such hauling can begin in as little as 2 years. Several years ago, we had a major fire in our incinerator that required us to quickly pivot to trucking our trash. This happened in a matter of days. In recent years, four other municipalities around the country also required abrupt incinerator closures, some due to fire, and they were able to immediately pivot without a waste crisis. These municipalities include Miami-Dade County, Florida, Detroit, Michigan, Hartford, Connecticut, and nearby, DC/Fairfax County, Virginia. Obviously, an emergency is different from a long-term strategy. But the County could implement emergency-like procedures in the beginning as they build out the recommended infrastructure for long term use.
We fully understand and accept that the County’s waste management overhaul is complex and challenging. But complexity is neither a rationale nor a justification for continuing to burn trash for up to eight more years in an aging and inefficient facility that pollutes, poses health risks to human beings, contributes to climate change and would require millions of dollars in investments in capital costs just to maintain the aging incinerator.
We believe that inertia is also playing a role here—
Inertia around changing course from a system (incineration) that has been operable for almost 30 years, however bad that system is
Inertia around the logistics of building a new system with new contracts
Inertia around altering the County’s arrangements with the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority, which has a vested interest in incineration
Inertia around dealing with a different set of costs, and
Inertia around getting approvals from the County Council for big changes in how the County deals with its trash
In addition, some DEP officials and perhaps some County Council members appear to be worried that sending trash outside the County would be a bad thing to do. We understand that concern but believe it is misplaced given the facts. Montgomery County already sends approximately 150,000 tons of toxic incinerator ash out-of-state—causing potential harm to another community for the past 30 years. Sending unburned trash to well-managed landfills in less populated communities would be much safer for any community receiving it. Plus, landfills are private businesses managed for profit and such interstate hauling of trash is common throughout the U.S.
SCA’s Role
SCA has been a part of the county’s deliberations on this issue for many years. At the request of the County Executive in 2020, we 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.
(See a synopsis of the report findings at the end of this web post.)
Legal agreements SCA reached in the 1990s with the County (following several lawsuits) grant SCA oversight of the county’s 50-acre yard trim compost facility in Dickerson. We are pleased to be a partner in this well-managed operation.
In 2023, the County approached SCA for approval to expand the compost facility to include food scraps, which comprise almost one quarter of the county’s total volume of garbage. Initial expansion work on that was set to begin this year, with food waste to start being shipped to the facility in late 2026 or early 2027. The scraps would be mixed with ground-up yard trim at Shady Grove and shipped via rail to Dickerson. In aerated static piles under closed-cover, the mix would be turned into a nutrient-rich soil additive—an enhancement to Leafgro, the County’s popular commercial product made from leaves and yard trim. Because of the advanced processing technology and the addition of nitrogen rich food scraps, the process would take nine weeks as opposed to the nine months it currently takes.
The County Council voted to approve this expansion plan and allocated $28 million to build it out. But it now appears that County is having second thoughts about expanding the Dickerson compost facility. In public comments on Jan 28, John Monger, DEP’s director, declined twice to answer direct questions from Council members about expanding the facility. He said the County was looking at other sites to compost food scraps.
SCA has not been privy to the County’s assessments of other sites. We have offered to modify our Settlement Agreement with the County and allow an expansion of the compost facility to include food scraps if the County was willing to negotiate an earlier date for the closure of the incinerator. We saw this as a win-win for both parties, and we offered to help educate the public about food waste composting.
On Jan 28, we urged County Council members to convene a public hearing on the incinerator contract extension before a March 25 deadline, after which the contract extension would automatically go into effect. We have further urged Council members to vote to deny the contract extension if DEP does not by March 15 or so get full data and information to the Council on:
The costs of keeping the incinerator operating and a detailed operational plan and timeline.
Cost comparisons of landfilling and aggressive recycling and food scrap diversion versus continued incineration (factoring in the “cost” to public health and greenhouse gas emissions)
Costs of renovating existing waste facilities
We will keep you apprised and updated on this important set of issues for the entire county.
The findings of the 99-page Beyond Incineration report, released in March 2021, remain relevant today. The report concluded:
Greenhouse gas emissions from the incinerator are 50 times greater than DEP estimates.
If built in the last decade, the Dickerson incinerator would not be legal to operate without extensive and expensive pollution control upgrades. Bringing the incinerator up to modern standards would cost $75 million to $100 million. That money would be better spent on Zero Waste alternatives.
Any development of a landfill at the county’s “in-reserve” site in Dickerson (usually referred to as “Site 2”) would threaten regional drinking water and the sole-source aquifer in the county’s Ag Reserve. The land is currently farmed. Another consultant, EA Engineering, hired by the County estimated that, in addition to the $28 million currently allocated to build out the Dickerson yard trim facility, another $60 million would be needed to develop this site. That money, too, would be better spent on Zero Waste infrastructure. (County officials have pledged in the past never to use Site 2 for a landfill due largely to strong community opposition.)
The 150,000 tons per year of toxic incinerator ash (what’s left over after burning) that is transported to a majority-Black community in Virginia violates the county’s stated ethical principles for waste management.
Incineration is 2.5 to 5 times worse in terms of adverse environmental and health impacts than landfilling at one of the 12 sites narrowed from a pool of 42 that met strict environmental justice criteria, identified in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio. This analysis took into account the monetized costs of hauling by truck or rail, global warming impact, emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, acid gases, toxic chemicals, and chemicals that form smog. (Extensive detail can be found in the report. On top of the basic tipping fee ($70-$100 per ton) the monetized health and environmental costs per ton are $259 for our incinerator versus approximately $80 for the vetted landfills cited above, in 2021 dollars.
An aggressive Zero Waste strategy could cut the volume of waste substantially in just a few years. That should include a “Pay as You Throw” or “Save as You Throw” program. Some 10,000 communities have shown that such programs reduce waste generation by an average of around 40%. When combined with efficient curbside food scrap collection, the diversion can reach as high as 70%. (Montgomery County is already successfully testing such programs, including food scrap collection for aerobic composting.)
The County should pursue Material Recovery and Biological Treatment (MRBT) technologies, which further extract organics and recyclables from the trash in order to reduce and stabilize it, before it is shipped to landfill.