Committee advances funding to study PFAS treatment at Oaks landfill and to upgrade county recycling center

The Transportation and Environment Committee on March 17 took up two Recycling and Resource Management capital-improvement amendments that staff said are necessary to meet upcoming regulatory requirements and to expand processing capacity.

Jamie Foster, section chief in the resource and recycling management division, told the committee the Oaks Landfill leachate pretreatment project is being retrofitted primarily to address PFAS, adding that federal and state regulations are evolving. Foster said the county began evaluation work using a granular activated carbon system but testing showed the approach would not meet the target for PFAS removal; the requested CIP funding will support evaluation of alternative treatment technologies and pilot work to identify an effective system prior to installation and discharge to WSSC's sanitary sewer system.

On the recycling center, Foster said the materials-recovery-facility (MRF) upgrade is carrying forward after a short delay for a facility-conditions assessment. The project is at about a 30% basis of design; staff expect to have 60% design-level specifications before committing to final equipment choices. Willie Weiner, who identified himself as chief of his area department, said the county currently brings about 31,000''3,000 tons of commingled material to the facility and does not plan a programmatic change to where material is collected.

Committee members pressed for clarity on capacity and costs. Staff said the existing processing equipment dates from the early 1990s (upgraded in 2001) and can handle about 8 tons per hour; the planned upgrade would process roughly 22 to 25 tons per hour, or nearly three times current throughput. Foster said the design work is exploring new processing technologies, including artificial-intelligence-enabled sorting, and that more precise equipment specifications will be available once the project reaches 60% design.

Members also asked whether the projects depend on a proposed increase to the solid-waste management fee in the county executive's budget. Levchenko (committee staff) and DEP staff said the executive's recommended rates include both operating and CIP proposals but that these two amendments have only a marginal effect on overall rates; the council retains authority to set final rates, and members requested a formal breakdown from DEP showing which projects each proposed fee increase would support.

The committee signaled support for the two RRM amendments and asked staff to return with more detailed fee-implication scenarios and the 60% basis of design for the MRF work. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote on these amendments.