Burn it, bury it…or do it right, that was the title of the reflection I wrote when I interviewed for the Maryland Conservation Advocate position at Nature Forward, and it still sums up how I see one of the biggest decisions facing Montgomery County right now.
The county’s contract with the Dickerson incinerator, officially called the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) waste-to-energy facility, will expire in April of 2031. This is an important moment to evaluate waste management options while reexamining the current strategies that can help the county reach a Zero Waste Goal.
These are the current options that are being evaluated by the County:
Option 1: Close RRF, Long-haul of waste by truck to out of county landfills, and eventual Advanced Waste Processing (AWP) with long-haul of remaining waste
Option 2: Close RRF as soon as possible, long-term landfilling of waste
Option 3: Continued interim use of RRF, transition to AWP with long-haul of remaining waste and closure of the RRF
Option 4: Continued long-term use of RRF
Four options, but many more questions. The title reflects my view that this isn’t a simple choice between an incinerator and a landfill. It is about finding the balance between protecting our communities and our environment.
That starts with recognizing that no perfect decision exists. Environmentally, every option carries tradeoffs. The real question becomes: which choice is most compatible with our ultimate goal of zero waste? In practical terms, that would be the route that would best allow us to monitor the waste management system and take an active part in the adjustments needed along the way to ensure our communities’ and ecosystem’s health.
There are many factors to weigh, and the conversation already reflects that. Some consider landfilling as the most suitable path, while others believe the best solution is keeping the incinerator and improving the current system. These groups aren’t opposed, but are people who genuinely care about making a conscious, responsible decision.
And that is exactly where this conversation should start: not from who is right, but from what we all want to protect. A decision that is made in 2026 will shape how Montgomery County lives with its waste for decades, so it deserves more than a quick answer.
To learn more, I carefully followed the process from the beginning, attending every work session and town hall the county held and reading the reports and materials shared along the way. It began with the July 28 work session, where the Council and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff presented the antecedents and summarized the main options. Then, at the August 31 town hall, hosted by Councilmembers Dawn Luedtke and Sidney Katz, DEP staff walked us through the pros and cons of each option, including costs and the impact on the county’s long-term solid waste plan.
From there, the conversation went deeper. In the September 15 work session , DEP staff made a presentation to the Councilanswering additional questions related to closure of the RRF, contracts to dispose waste out-of-county, trucking of waste to landfill(s), landfilling of waste, expanded organics composting and advanced waste processing. On September 29, Reworld, the current operator of the facility, provided its perspective on the county’s RRF and answered questions from Council staff. The process came back to the community on October 20, at a town hall hosted by Councilmember Laurie-Anne Sayles, where DEP staff shared information about the current process decision and answered questions from audience members.
While I was following each of these conversations, I researched the essential elements that helped shape Nature Forward’s position by examining environmental justice analyses, researching studies on landfills and incinerators, and exploring worldwide strategies and policy best practices. From that work, I developed the recommendation that became our organization’s position.
Nature Forward’s Position
In this case, neither waste management option is ideal (continued incineration or trucking to landfill), however after evaluating the evidence, we support continued operation of the RRF with the implementation of upgrades to improve sustainability while simultaneously enforcing the strategies on the county’s waste plan that focus on reducing and reusing waste.
Our reasons
We believe that building a robust waste management strategy, beyond education and awareness work, depends on our ability to answer a few questions: How much waste do we produce, and of what type? How much do we recover through recycling? How much is left over that cannot be reused, and what happens to it? Does it decompose? Does it contaminate the environment and how? And who is responsible for cleaning it up?
Answering these questions makes us accountable, fair, and lets us adjust our strategies as needed. Once waste leaves Maryland, however, the answers rest with another state’s regulators, not with us. So the first question is simple: does it matter where our waste goes?
It does! Managing our waste locally can help avoid passing the environmental cost to communities that did not generate the waste, while also strengthening our own community engagement through awareness campaigns. It also keeps waste in view, and that matters: Research on plastic waste exports suggest that when waste is sent elsewhere, the problem fades from view and the pressure to reduce it weakens. The European Union offers an illustrative case, as its policy of treating waste close to where it is generated aims to prevent exactly that cost-shifting and appears to encourage more separation and recycling as well, partly because disposing mixed waste becomes more costly.
Does fairness stop at the state line? It shouldn’t. Our waste strategy should avoid harming communities wherever they live. So, does the incinerator option fall short? Not on this front. The communities around the facility in Dickerson aren’t flagged as an environmental justice concern. A recent county-commissioned health study of two dioxin emission spikes there at the RFF modeled the risk to nearby residents and found that, even if the spikes lasted a full year, the cancer risk would still be well below Maryland’s action levels (the levels that would trigger intensive treatment by the state).
In the current debate, two topics require special attention in regards to environmental justice. The first one, tied to the incinerator, is the question of where the leftover ash goes. Currently, it is sent to a landfill in Virginia whose neighbors already carry a heavy environmental burden. The task lies in finding a better home for the ash. The I-95 Landfill Complex in Fairfax County seems promising, however we believe that the county should consider different options.
The second problem, tied to the long-haul proposal, is located at the Shady Grove Transfer Station in Derwood, MD, where the community already experiences relatively high environmental burdens. Data from environmental justice screening tools show elevated levels of pollutants commonly associated with traffic and other combustion sources. The county’s long-haul proposal would add about 80 truckloads a day at the Shady Grove Transfer Station, which could aggravate those burdens. The county expects that number to shrink as we reduce waste, but that depends on reductions that haven’t happened yet. Hauling waste farther does not make the burden disappear;, rather, it shifts it to Derwood and risks harming communities not involved in the waste’s production.
A better option on paper is not enough;, effective environmental protection depends not only on where the waste goes, but on our ability to ensure execution, adapt to emerging risks, and correct problems when they arise.
Is the landfill a greener choice? Not necessarily. A report commissioned by the Mongomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) estimates slightly lower greenhouse gas emissions for long-haul landfilling, but it also notes that its model appears to overestimate how much landfill gas gets captured. Additional research suggests that, over the long term, landfills can emit more greenhouse gases, mainly because of methane, and recent research shows those releases vary widely from site to site depending on gas collection, soil, and moisture. The gap can also grow if the electricity the incinerator produces is not replaced with renewable energy.
So who makes sure it works as promised? Neither option is inherently safer. The difference is that the incinerator operates under our state regulators and a contract the county would renegotiate, while a landfill in Virginia or Pennsylvania would not. At the RFF, the county can identify problems, require corrective action, and verify compliance. When tests showed dioxin emissions above the permit limit, the affected units were repaired and retested, and a county commissioned health study found the modeled risk well below Maryland’s action levels. The incinerator’s pollution-control systems can also be upgraded as new contaminants emerge. Landfills, in contrast, must contain the liquid that drains through the waste (leachate) for decades, and if containment or gas capture falls short, the county would have little power to require a fix.
Ultimately, this situation forces us to choose between the two least preferred waste management options. The incinerator is not risk-free, but it is at least one that we can monitor.
We support keeping the incinerator running with upgrades and finding a new home for its ash. But the real solution lies in producing less waste, reusing more and recycling and composting what we can. The questions we started with – namely how much, what kind, what happens to it, and who answers for it – are easier to answer when we make less waste and keep it closer to home.
What can we do?
The conversation doesn’t end with the incinerator or landfill decision; this is just the beginning of reaching our county’s Zero Waste Goal.
- Ask your County Councilmembers about concrete plans they have to reduce, reuse, and compost more in Montgomery County instead of trucking trash to other jurisdictions.
- Inform yourself about the current waste management programs and share with neighbors, schools and local groups.
- Sign up for Nature Forward Action Alerts to receive updates on the RFF and how to hold the County accountable for its waste management decisions.
Additional resources:
What do other places do to produce less waste?
Plenty, and not only big institutions or cities. Across the country, schools, grocery stores, hospitals, and public agencies have cut waste by composting food scraps, donating surplus food, reusing materials, and tracking what they throw away, as documented in the EPA’s collection of waste reduction success stories. San Francisco makes a circular economy one of the seven sectors of its Climate Action Plan aiming to keep products in use through sharing, reuse, and repair.
County’s waste management timeline
1995
The Dickerson incinerator opens. It is owned by Montgomery County through a state waste authority and run by a company called Covanta, now called Reworld.
June 2018
The “Aiming Zero Waste Task Force” starts working on sustainable waste management strategies optimization, including waste reduction and non-recyclable waste. It also reviews the operations and costs of the county’s RRF, considering alternative options such as long-haul of waste to landfills.
December 2018
County Executive Elrich announces his support for closing the RRF.
May 2020
“Aiming for Zero Waste Task Force” shares recommendations with the county executive and the County Council suggesting the need for a detailed analysis in case the county considers the closure of RRF.
October 2021
The 2020- 2029 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan is adopted by the council and later approved by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The plan asks the county executive to compare the costs and impacts of keeping the RRF operating vs switching to landfills.
April 2025
- The 2025-2034 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by the council and later approved by the MDE.
- The county executive supports an urgent deal to keep the facility operating until April of 2031. The county had already extended the contract twice, and it is set to end in April of 2026.
- The deal also includes about $64.5 million, paid by the county, to repair and improve the facility over several years, so it stays safe until 2031.
June 2025
The council receives a Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) sponsored consultant report titled “Municipal Solid Waste Management System, Alternatives Analysis” by Arcadis that explores different disposal waste options for the county: namely, keeping the RRF operating, trucking all waste out, or building a new sorting facility and trucking out the remaining waste.
July 2025
- The county executive submits a request for proposals to truck the county’s waste to a landfill outside the county.
- 2026 Budget (year starting July 2025) is approved: The Council approves $35.5 million in expenditures for the first phase of repairs. It does not fund planning for a new sorting facility.
October 2025
The County Council submits a request for proposals for the long-haul of county waste by truck and disposal at an out-of-county landfill.
July 2026
- The county submits a request for proposals to design, build and run a new facility (Advanced Waste Processing) that sorts waste to pull out recyclables and food scraps, reducing the amount of waste that would be trucked away.
- 2027 Budget (year starting July 2026) is approved: The council approved $17 million in short-term works for RRF.
