Residents urge council to block incinerator contract extension as public hearing opens on 10-year solid-waste plan

Montgomery County Council opened a public hearing Feb. 11 on the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan 2025–2034 as dozens of residents and local advocates urged faster action to close the county’s waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerator and demanded full cost and emissions information before any contract extension is approved.

Speakers told the council that the county’s Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) in Dickerson generates electricity and revenue but argued its environmental and health costs merit ending incineration while alternatives are pursued. "Montgomery County has long been a leader in responsible waste management and our resource recovery facility stands a testament to that commitment," said Rebecca Smondrowski, a registered speaker, noting county figures that the RRF provides enough electricity to power about 26,000 homes and that the facility generated $12,234,000 in renewable energy credits in fiscal 2024 (2025 revenue was described as an estimated $10,000,000).

The hearing drew sustained testimony urging the council to introduce a resolution denying a planned incinerator contract extension and to hold a separate public hearing on that extension prior to the extension taking effect. Multiple speakers said the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has not provided the cost analyses, life-cycle assessments or other data they say are necessary to evaluate an extension. "For you to have a legal say regarding this extension, we have just learned that the council must introduce a resolution to consider the incinerator contract extension and then hold a public hearing in 14 days before approving it all before March 25," said Karen Mechis, who aligned with other speakers in requesting clearer public process and more data.

Speakers framed the issue along environmental, health and fiscal lines. Several referenced county and outside analyses. Diana Conway, representing a countywide group advocating for zero-waste programs, asked the council to restore two regulatory options from the previous plan — including bottle-deposit legislation and local bans on single-use foodware — and repeated calls for a public hearing on the contract extension negotiated by the Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority. "To properly evaluate the contract extension request, you need the information," she said.

Other witnesses disputed consultant modeling and urged the county to consider immediate options for hauling waste to regional landfills while diversion programs ramp up. Elad Fernberg criticized the WARM model used in some county analyses, calling it "a deceptive model" that undercounts certain incinerator emissions and noting a separate peer-reviewed tool (the MebCalc model) was used in the 2020 Beyond Incineration report that the speakers cited. Mike Ewall, founder and executive director of Energy Justice Network, urged the council to consider an expedited closure plan and a "what if the incinerator burned down tomorrow" contingency so the county could move rapidly to alternate disposal without a crisis.

Speakers also raised technical and local-environment concerns. Caroline Taylor of the Montgomery Countryside Alliance asked the council to explicitly exclude the county’s Site 2 in Dickerson from future landfill consideration because of the federally designated sole-source aquifer in that area. Residents who live near the plant asked for continuous stack monitoring and additional pollution controls; Sue Carr said the incinerator currently emits nitrogen-oxide levels she described as "90 PPMs" and asked that the county install upgraded scrubbers and continuous monitors if burning continues.

Several witnesses noted transportation and revenue trade-offs. Smondrowski and others said the RRF supplies in-state electricity and rail-transfer logistics that keep trucks off local roads; others pointed to ash shipments out of state and the costs of building new composting facilities if alternatives are chosen.

The council took no formal action on the plan or a contract resolution during the hearing. The public hearing record closed at the end of the scheduled comments. The council’s meeting packet notes that those wishing to submit material for the council’s consideration should do so by the close of business on Feb. 20, 2025. The Transportation and Environment Committee said a work session will be scheduled at a later date.

The range of testimony — from calls to preserve the RRF for its revenue and rail advantages to demands for immediate closure and independent life-cycle analyses — underscores the policy trade-offs the council must weigh before any decision on a contract extension or a long-term disposal strategy.