Madison County committee hears landfill feasibility update; staff flags leachate, permitting and next‑step study

Jonathan, the committee’s lead on the landfill property, told the Madison County Economic Development Committee that his initial review of King George County’s solid‑waste plan and Virginia DEQ siting guidance suggests the Madison site could meet siting standards but requires more detailed engineering and permitting work.

Why it matters: the county owns roughly 240 acres at the landfill, about 20 acres of which are a brownfield; the usable acreage and regulatory constraints will determine whether reopening or developing the site is feasible and what environmental controls (especially leachate handling) would cost.

In his presentation Jonathan summarized two main contacts for his review — King George County staff and DEQ landfill permitting staff — and cited King George’s FY2023 commercial solid‑waste revenue as an illustrative data point, saying King George reported about $4,600,000 in commercial solid‑waste revenue that year. He said the Madison site would have “a little over 200 acres” to consider once brownfield acreage is excluded and that the county should not expect the brownfield area to be reopened.

Jonathan highlighted leachate as a major operational cost, explaining that lined sanitary landfills collect leachate which must be treated or transported to a wastewater facility. He described two common approaches: trucking leachate to a disposal facility (which can be very expensive) or investing in onsite evaporator units; he said evaporators can have upfront capital costs on the order of roughly $1,000,000 in his example but may pay back over several years by avoiding repeated transport costs and by accepting leachate from other jurisdictions.

He also said DEQ provided code sections for siting and design standards and that his preliminary read indicates Madison likely has sufficient buffer distances from roads and neighbors to meet siting criteria, but that he has not yet completed design‑level review and is not an engineer. Jonathan recommended scheduling a meeting with King George’s landfill operations manager and following with DEQ permitting staff to refine questions and to decide whether to commission a formal feasibility or environmental engineering study.

Committee reaction and next steps: the chair and other members pressed for more definitive analysis. The chair said his current inclination was that reopening the site “would not fly” without more information but agreed the committee should pursue definitive research that will produce a clear yes/no feasibility determination. Jonathan and the committee agreed to arrange operations and DEQ meetings and to consider a scope and budget for a feasibility study if preliminary meetings are promising.