BRISTOL — After discussing a return to single-stream recycling at Bristol’s solid waste transfer station during an early-August meeting, selectmen on Aug. 19 heard a proposal to go all the way to “source separation” — keeping plastics, cardboard, glass, and aluminum in separate recycle streams.
Doing so could make recycling a money-maker rather than a budget-buster. Single-stream recycling, which offers convenience that, in turn, encourages more people to recycle, has the disadvantage of costing more than simply tossing everything in the garbage bin, and its environmental benefits are dubious. Because of cross-contamination, between 25 and 40 percent of the material going into single-stream recycling ends up in the landfill, anyway, according to Susan Collins, director of the Container Recycling Institute. The remaining 60 percent still has to be sorted, adding to the expense, and the market for many recyclables is small to non-existent.
Faced with costs for single-stream recycling that were double the cost of simply throwing everything away, selectmen last year suspended the town’s recycling program except for asking residents to separate the glass. When they met earlier this month, the selectmen reached a consensus that they should return to single-stream recycling because “it’s the right thing to do for the environment.”
Hall Road resident Janet Metcalf urged the selectmen make a decision soon. She acknowledged the complexity of the issue, but said she has recycled all her life, despite the inconvenience, because it is important.
Source separation was the goal for the new transfer station, but despite years of planning, the final design did not provide enough space to handle full recycling, which led the selectmen to reconsider the single-stream option. Public Works Superintendent Mark Bucklin on Aug. 19 offered a way around it: By moving the demolition materials bin to a lower level on the site, there would be room to accommodate recycling bins.
“We could free up space up top for recycling,” he said.
Selectman Don Milbrand agreed that it makes sense to create a different tier for demolition material if it would allow for full recycling, but it requires additional excavation and the building of another block wall — something Bucklin said could not happen “overnight”.
Selectman Rick Alpers commented, “Whether or not we move the Dumpsters, it’s a volume problem. We need to come up with a process to have another Dumpster available because of the capacity issue.”
The new transfer station has seen a much-larger volume of traffic and, combined with throwing everything together, the bins have filled much more quickly, requiring the town to shut down the transfer station a few times. To place an additional bin also would require the equipment to move the full bins out of the way — another cost to the town.
“I’m willing to take the loss on the budget to put recycling back into play,” Alpers said.
The discussion moved to other ways of curbing the amount of material being placed in the solid waste bins, including limiting the amount of demolition material or creating a fee structure based on the size of the truck or trailer. They also touched on the possibility of having the attendants accept payment for dumping permits, although the idea was quickly shot down because of the hectic atmosphere, especially on Saturdays.
Chair Les Dion brought the discussion back around, saying, “Let’s get through one thing at a time.”
She asked for updated figures on what it would cost to go to single-stream recycling, and Bucklin said he would look into the cost of a used truck capable of moving the loaded bins so they could swap them out when full.
Selectmen will be taking up the issue again at their meeting on Thursday, Sept. 5.
