Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Rff topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, environmental groups press council to close county incinerator; opponents warn of costs and lost services
Summary
Multiple speakers at the April 8 hearing debated Montgomery County's proposed FY27 solid-waste plan, including a proposal to close the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). Supporters cited recent dioxin leaks, public-health risks, and cost savings from closure; opponents urged more data on replacement costs, trucking, and contract liabilities.
A central strand of the April 8 budget hearing focused on the Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection's plan to transition away from trash incineration at the county Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) and to rely on vetted landfills and expanded composting.
Speakers in both directions turned out in force. Elizabeth Fiedler said the DEP's plan would "finally close the trash incinerator," citing recent detected dioxin and furan leaks and an estimated $365 million renovation cost for the aging facility. She told the council that closing the RRF and moving to vetted landfills and composting would reduce health risks and help implement zero-waste strategies.
Multiple environmental groups and residents supported that approach and asked the council to fund the DEP plan in the FY27 budget so construction of a composting facility and other elements could proceed. Friends of the Earth and other advocates said landfill transition, paired with methane capture and aggressive waste reduction, is preferable to continued incineration.
Opponents warned that the county lacks full cost comparisons. Dr. Vivian Thompson, a retired environmental-policy professor, opposed an immediate closure without a full options analysis and cited county studies showing the RRF does not "measurably degrade local air quality." Kit Gage and others pressed the council to account for contract buyout costs (one figure cited was a $7,000,000 buyout for two years), diesel fuel for trucking to alternate disposal sites, lost revenue from electricity and metal recycling sales, and other decommissioning costs.
Another contingent urged the council not to delay action. Supporters argued that continuing to operate the 30-year-old RRF carries ongoing pollution risks and that DEP has already identified vetted landfills and a phased plan for food-composting and organics diversion. Elad Fernberg, a Ph.D. scientist, said the DEP plan could produce annual maintenance savings (17,000,000 was cited in testimony) and avoid the expensive renovation estimate.
The council did not vote on the solid-waste plan during the hearing; testimony closed with requests from both sides to either adopt DEP's transition in the FY27 budget or to require additional briefings and data.
Provenance: testimony spanning segments where the RRF and solid-waste disposal were discussed began with Dr. Vivian Thompson's remarks introducing RRF concerns and continued through multiple speakers including Kit Gage, Elizabeth Fiedler, Lauren (0 Waste Montgomery County), Friends of the Earth, and Elad Fernberg.
Next steps: council members need to reconcile DEP's technical analysis with requested clarifying cost data; several speakers asked the council to schedule a DEP briefing for the full council before making a final decision.
