Finance Committee members push back on Waste Management vertical expansion, community benefit proposal

At a Feb. 25, 2025 New Castle County Council Finance Committee meeting, representatives of Waste Management briefed the committee on a proposal to pursue a vertical expansion at the DRPI landfill and on a voluntary "host benefit" payment similar to Pennsylvania's Act 101. Committee members expressed strong opposition, asked county land-use staff and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for documentation, and requested the handout Waste Management brought be distributed to all members.

Waste Management presenters said the firm is exploring a 50-foot vertical expansion (additional airspace on top of the existing permitted footprint) and described a proposed community-benefit payment schedule. Harold Lammon, operations manager for Waste Management, said the company included a forecast in its handout showing a proposed $2.50-per-ton rate that, by Waste Management's estimate, could generate roughly $1 million countywide over the life of the expansion. Lammon said the additional vertical airspace would provide about 10 years of disposal life, and emphasized the company's view that using existing infrastructure is more responsible than creating a new landfill site.

Scott Perron, area director of disposal operations for Waste Management, told the committee the company recognizes a county ordinance and a state statute would have to be changed for any expansion and said the company intended to work "in coordination with the county and the state." Perron also said the community-benefit agreement that had been discussed previously with a local civic group did not materialize and that "there have actually been no community benefit payments going out to any community members." He added Waste Management invests broadly in sustainability and recycling efforts and cited national investments the company is making.

Council members criticized the idea of lifting the landfill's current height limits. Councilman Street said Waste Management's approach amounted to "buying the continuation of environmental injustice" and warned that the council and state legislature would contest any attempt to change local limits. Councilwoman Durham and Councilman Olives both said they oppose expansion; Olives said he could not imagine supporting any expansion while he serves on the council. Councilman Poole noted confusion about the "50 feet" figure and asked Waste Management to clarify it relative to the county's existing 40-foot limit and the statutory maximum that was referenced in the presentation.

Several committee members asked county staff and DNREC to provide: (1) an authoritative statement on the landfill's current permitted height and expected closing date; and (2) records of any community-benefit payments previously made or committed. Councilwoman Durham specifically asked that the handout Waste Management provided be emailed to all committee members; Waste Management representatives said they were collecting copies but agreed to leave at least one packet for distribution.

No formal action was taken on the presentation. The chair observed that, based on the discussion, a majority of the committee appeared opposed to expansion as described by Waste Management. Waste Management said the briefing was intended as a starting point for further dialogue and acknowledged the topic is "very emotional," adding the company would continue community engagement if the proposal moves forward.

The committee did not vote on any ordinance or amendment at the meeting; members prescribed follow-up requests for information and said further deliberations would depend on the documentation they receive.