Council grills ReWorld on emissions, PFAS and cost as it weighs future of Montgomery County incinerator

Montgomery County Council spent most of its Sept. 29 work session focused on a technical presentation from ReWorld, the current operator of the county Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) in Dickerson, and on staff analyses comparing long‑term alternatives for the county's solid‑waste disposal.

ReWorld executives outlined a multi‑part business that includes thermal mechanical treatment, water treatment and PFAS destruction and argued the county’s RRF provides large greenhouse‑gas benefits. "We divert 19,000,000 tons from going into landfills," said Amir Hafzallah, ReWorld South Region lead, during the presentation. ReWorld and company experts also said the facility operates well below federal standards in its real‑time emissions reporting and that independent health‑risk analyses showed risks below human‑health thresholds following recent exceedances.

Councilmembers pressed ReWorld and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff on a string of technical and policy questions: whether ReWorld will institute more frequent or continuous emissions testing after the 2025 exceedances; the timetable, scope and cost of the phased refurbishments ReWorld proposed versus the Arcadis consultant’s larger capital scenario; how ash would be handled if reuse (aggregate/cement feedstock) approvals are required; and how PFAS destruction is assured in practice.

"Thank you so much for the presentation, very detailed presentation," Council President Natalie Fanny Gonzalez said after the ReWorld presentation, before turning to a series of detailed council questions. Councilmember Krista Mink asked directly whether ReWorld had increased testing frequency and "would ReWorld be willing to implement continuous sampling of the toxic emissions?" ReWorld said it has performed additional engineering testing, can expedite tests at a cost and will provide costed options for more frequent or continuous sampling used at other facilities.

On costs, ReWorld disputed the Arcadis lifecycle numbers that the county included in its packet, arguing Arcadis assumed a full boiler replacement and a lump sum capital program of roughly $356 million. ReWorld offered an alternate phased approach it said would lower near‑term capital needs and spread investments over time. County staff told the council cost comparisons — including rate impacts for single‑family and multifamily households — will be presented at follow‑up meetings.

Councilmembers directed staff to return with an "apples‑to‑apples" comparison of (a) capital and operating cost scenarios, (b) greenhouse‑gas and local air‑pollution impacts, (c) ash‑market options and timelines, (d) environmental‑justice implications, and (e) monitoring regimes and price points for higher‑frequency or continuous sampling. The council is scheduled for two additional work sessions on the topic in October.