Residents and advocates urge County Council to accelerate closure of Montgomery County incinerator

Montgomery County residents and environmental advocates urged the County Council during a public hearing to change the proposed 2025'1034 comprehensive solid waste management plan so the county can move faster to stop incinerating trash and adopt safer disposal alternatives.

Tom Drozky told the council the county's Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) in Dickerson "provides enough electricity to power 26,000 homes annually," and highlighted the facility's revenue: "In fiscal year 2024 alone, the facility generated $12,234,000 in renewable energy credits for the county. 2025 revenue is estimated to be approximately 10,000,000." Drozky warned that abandoning the RRF for long‑haul landfilling would increase traffic, emissions and costs for taxpayers.

Other speakers said the plan's sequencing is the problem. Karen Metzsch, speaking for Climate Coalition Montgomery County, said the plan should be revised so "the alternative end of life disposal method would be implemented to the extent possible simultaneously with implementation of other diversion programs not after they're all in place," arguing the current language would keep the incinerator operating for seven more years. Metzsch also told the council the public needs a separate hearing on the incinerator contract extension and written cost information from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Diana Conway of 0 Waste Montgomery County pressed the council to "pass a resolution to deny the contract extension and then hold a public hearing so you can exercise your legal authority to prevent this contract extension," saying DEP has not provided the cost justifications the council and advocates requested. Conway also asked that regulatory options from the previous plan, such as a bottle bill and local bans on single‑use foodware, be reincorporated.

Lauren Greenberg said the plan's data about emissions and costs is incomplete and cited ash shipments and published per‑ton estimates: "We do send that 150,000 tons of ash to Virginia already," she said, and asked for a life‑cycle cost comparison and an updated analysis before any extension is approved.

Several speakers raised technical objections to modeling and monitoring. Elad Fernberg criticized the county's reliance on consultant reports and the WARM model and said those tools can undercount incinerator emissions; others asked for continuous emissions monitoring and publicly accessible, frequent data rather than annual stack tests.

Speakers asked specific, council‑actionable steps: introduce a resolution to deny automatic contract extension that would take effect March 25 if the council does not act; require DEP and its contractors to provide complete cost and emissions analyses; and add continuous monitoring or additional pollution controls if the county keeps the facility operating while alternatives are developed.

Why it matters: The comments tie environmental justice, public health, and county fiscal obligations to the plan and to the pending decision point on the incinerator contract. Several advocates linked technical questions (models, monitoring, ash disposal) to a larger demand that the county not extend the contract without transparent cost and health information.

The hearing was closed with no vote on the plan recorded in the transcript; councilmembers were later scheduled to receive further briefings and committee work sessions on related topics. The transcript records no immediate response from DEP during this hearing regarding the outstanding cost or monitoring data requested by speakers.