Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TRC says improved compaction extends life of Nottoway landfill to about 12 years; Cell 6 can be deferred
Summary
Consultants reported better compaction and stable tonnage that extend Cells 1–5 life from a prior 5.5‑year estimate to roughly 12–12.5 years, reducing immediate urgency to build Cell 6; board will continue monitoring and revisit options when projections change.
Bill Salomon of TRC told the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 11 that updated survey data and on‑site compaction improvements have extended the projected life of Cells 1–5 at the county landfill.
Salomon, the TRC consultant, said the firm’s recent flyover and volume survey showed the county now uses about 1.4 cubic yards of airspace per incoming ton, down from an earlier roughly 2 cubic yards per ton. “We were predicting 5 and a half years,” Salomon said. “We’ve seen where the numbers are up to 12 and a half years right now.”
Why it matters: the change in compaction reduces near‑term pressure to open a new engineered cell (Cell 6) or to close the landfill and shift to a transfer station. TRC presented annual tonnage data showing long‑term variation — roughly 14,000 to 22,000 tons per year historically — and an average daily rate that was nearer 40 tons per day in 2024–25 compared with higher peak years.
Board members asked whether the compaction gains reflected new equipment, different operator practices or lower volumes from out‑of‑county haulers. Gary (landfill manager) and TRC staff said tighter operational compaction (running the compactor more frequently and reusing cover soil) and unchanged tonnage in the last two years account for most of the effect. “I run the compact all day,” Gary said, describing the day‑to‑day practice that aided compaction.
TRC explained its method: a two‑year survey cycle produces a 3‑D surface model compared with a final build‑out surface to compute remaining airspace; the firm said the October flyover provided data that changed the earlier March projection, which had been based on older imagery and different compaction patterns.
TRC emphasized that projections assume current conditions remain steady. Salomon said the firm triple‑checked the analysis and confirmed operational changes with county staff: “If everything stayed the same, if the tonnage stayed the same, if the compaction stayed the same, that’s what you’re looking at for Cells 1 through 5.”
What’s next: TRC recommended ongoing monitoring of tonnage and compaction; several supervisors asked for more frequent reviews (every six months) and for the capacity analysis to remain on the docket. The board agreed to keep monitoring data under review rather than immediately budget for Cell 6, noting a roughly two‑year schedule for design and permitting if the board later decides to proceed.
The board received the TRC presentation and did not take a formal vote on building Cell 6 at the meeting. The board also asked staff to provide the written report and figures that accompanied the presentation.
