Gloucester supervisors delay decision on Waste Management request to match DEQ tonnage limits

The Gloucester County Board of Supervisors heard a detailed presentation from Waste Management on a proposed amendment to the county's operating permit that would align local annual tonnage allowances with Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) limits.

Brian Lewis, introduced as engineering services director for WM, told the board the county's current host agreement caps annual tonnage at 660,000 tons with a daily limit of 4,000 tons. He said the DEQ permit allows up to 1,200,000 tons per year and that, "If we get the 1,200,000 tons approved and we actually hit 1,200,000 tons, it would be roughly $2,100,000 in host fees for a year." He also estimated the landfill's remaining life is about 36 years under current volumes and could be roughly 20 years if the higher annual tonnage were reached.

Supervisors pressed WM on sources of additional tonnage and traffic impacts. Scott Thacker, WM's director of disposal operations, said additional volumes would come largely from long‑haul transfer stations in Northern Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia and that options for addressing capacity at end of life include vertical or lateral expansions, new transfer stations or permitting new landfills. "There are expansions," Thacker said, noting expansion and permitting would be years in the future and that WM typically assumes permitting and construction expense, but may ask host communities for planning support.

Several supervisors said the county needs more specific, written commitments before acting. Supervisor Bozzani said matching the DEQ limit could "shave off" years of landfill life and pressed to postpone the decision until three newly elected board members take office in January. He warned against repeating past outcomes and said, "you've got a sweetheart deal in this county with respect to Waste Management." The county attorney advised against approving the amendment that night, listing the reduced landfill life, lack of increased tonnage fee, absence of written expansion obligations and the incoming board turnover as reasons to defer.

Board members asked staff and WM to return with additional materials including: a verified estimate of additional daily truck trips, draft contract language that would bind WM to expansion or compensation commitments, capacity drawings showing how expansion acreage would extend site life, and a clearer compensation schedule tied to incremental tonnage increases. Chair concluded there was no motion on the floor and directed staff to provide the requested documentation and legal review before any future vote.

Because the board did not vote on the amendment, no contractual change was adopted at the meeting. The WM presentation and the questions raised by supervisors establish the issues staff must address before the board will consider a final decision.