Montgomery County council hears DEP plan for 'Aiming for 0 Waste,' debate grows over timing and contract extension

Montgomery County Council received an extended briefing on Jan. 29 from the Department of Environmental Protection on the county's "Aiming for 0 Waste" initiative and a planned transition away from the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF).

Council President Kate Stewart opened the session, noting the briefing would be informational and that no council action was scheduled that day. John Monger, director of the Department of Environmental Protection, told the council that engineering analysis indicates a minimum of approximately 4—65 years to implement a viable alternative processing-and-haul system and that the county must act quickly to meet an aggressive schedule. "Implementation of any new system for handling our trash will take a minimum of approximately 5 years according to our engineers," Monger said.

Monger described multiple, parallel efforts: expanding recycling and curbside composting, constructing an organics management facility, upgrading the recycling center with AI-enabled sorting equipment, and evaluating long-haul and advanced-processing options. He said the county is simultaneously evaluating systems that range from long-haul trucking or rail to advanced waste processing combined with long haul, and that whichever option is chosen will require capital projects and lead times. "These timelines are aggressive," he said, and the department will return to council with detailed cost and schedule information during the FY26 budget process.

Representatives of the Sugarloaf Citizens Association urged the council to reject a long extension of the RRF service agreement and to move immediately to an interim hauling strategy. Steve Finley, SCA president, and Lauren Greenberger, identified by SCA as a subject-matter expert, said the county could begin trucking to nearby landfills much sooner than the DEP's timetable. "We can do this, and it does not need to take 7 years," Greenberger said, citing prior consultant work and examples of other jurisdictions that switched disposal strategies after incinerator closures.

The SCA also raised financial concerns about short-term investments at the RRF. Greenberger said contract negotiations with the current operator included an ask for approximately $100 million to maintain the aging incinerator over a five-year extension and asked why taxpayer money should be used for long-term maintenance of a facility slated for eventual closure. DEP officials said they would provide more detailed figures and an analysis of necessary short-term maintenance investments during the budget review.

Council members pressed DEP staff on the assumptions behind the 4—65-year timeline, the options for rail versus truck long-haul, capital and operating cost estimates, and contingency operations if the council declined to extend the current service agreement. Chair Glass (Transportation and Environment Committee) emphasized the county's goal to close the RRF and asked for clarity on what dollars the county has already invested to support transition efforts; Monger replied that roughly $170 million had been invested in recycling and processing upgrades over the prior three years.

DEP technical staff walked council members through the operational differences between short-term emergency re-routing (which the county executed in prior incidents) and a sustained, long-haul solution. Steve Lesinski, DEP project lead, listed infrastructure needs that make long-term hauling more complex than emergency trucking: transfer-station reconfiguration, rail-yard staging and rolling stock, permitting and roadway improvements, and driver and equipment availability.

Monger said the department is asking the council to help meet key near-term milestones, including approval of the updated solid waste management plan this winter, preliminary design funding for alternatives in May 2025, an amendment to the solid waste plan no later than March 2027, and funding for final design and construction no later than May 2027. He also introduced Kaylee Lawlecker, recently hired as a senior lead on the 0-waste effort.

Council members asked DEP to provide three items before the next formal decisions: more precise cost estimates for short-term extension scenarios, an analysis of what would happen operationally and financially if the council refused an extension, and a detailed contingency plan that could begin hauling immediately if needed. DEP committed to returning with those details during the FY26 budget process and to post materials and engagement opportunities on its "Aiming for 0 Waste" website.

The briefing closed with a reminder that a public hearing on the county's solid waste management plan was scheduled for Feb. 11, when residents would have an opportunity to testify on the plan and any proposed amendments.

Why it matters: The council must weigh public-health and environmental concerns, the cost of short-term investments at the RRF, and the practical time needed to build or procure alternative processing and hauling capacity. Residents and community groups pressed for faster action; DEP says the engineering and permitting realities require multi-year schedules and that more precise cost and contingency information will be provided for the council's budget deliberations.

Next steps: DEP will provide more detailed budget and contingency projections to the council during the FY26 budget process and the council will hold a public hearing on the solid waste management plan on Feb. 11.