Greenfield needs a public process to discuss potential changes to the city’s recycling system.
A Sept. 16 Recorder article detailed a proposed change from collecting recycling in a dual stream — bottles, cans and containers kept separate from paper and cardboard, to single stream — recyclables still kept separate from trash, but bottles, cans and paper jumbled together in a single large cart at the curb and in a single compartment in the truck [“City to change to single-stream recycling system”].
Missing from the article (and a similar one on the city’s website) is the fact that switching from dual stream to single stream would require transporting recyclables to a different facility to separate the materials, not our Springfield Materials Recovery Facility.
Yes, the city clearly needs new trucks, and the larger, automated trucks provided by the EPA grant will improve safety and efficiency. But automated collection doesn’t have to be single stream; it can also be dual stream. Replacing our recycling boxes with lidded carts will keep paper dry and reduce litter; but carts like these can also be used with dual stream.
It is baffling that the articles don’t mention that with single-stream recycling, we will no longer be eligible to participate in the Western Mass. regional recycling program in which 65 member communities deliver recyclables to the Springfield MRF. The MRF does not accept materials in a single stream, only dual stream. Greenfield and the other member communities are under contract with the MRF operator through June 2025.
If Greenfield makes the switch to single stream, our recyclables will likely ultimately be trucked to a privately owned single stream MRF in Berlin, Connecticut, or to Avon, Billerica, or Auburn in Massachusetts, and the per-ton processing fees will rise.
This potential increase to the monthly Department of Public Works budget should be publicly discussed. The city would be under contract with a private, for-profit company and we will have no oversight authority and few choices of where to go.
The Springfield MRF is owned by MassDEP and is run by an advisory board made up of representatives of the participating municipalities, including Greenfield and the Franklin County Solid Waste Management District. Daily operations are contracted out, currently to Waste Management Recycle America.
For the facility to operate at an efficient level, the contract requires that a minimum number of tons be delivered to the MRF annually. Without Greenfield, there’s a strong possibility that the region might not be able to meet its commitment, with serious consequences for the other 64 towns, and a loss of regional cooperation.
But there is hope for the region, as Holyoke is rejoining the Springfield MRF, changing from single stream back to dual stream to be able to do so. Why, despite the massive retraining needed, would a city go back to dual stream if single stream is so wonderful? We should ask them. But it is likely because of money, quality of materials, and loss of control.
Our quality control in Greenfield is currently quite good. If the wrong materials are put in the recycling box, it can be seen, and the material is left behind until corrections are made. In a 60-gallon cart with a lid, when the driver never leaves the truck, nothing will be able to be inspected except by camera as it is dumped. This has costs: the city of Newton paid $92,000 in contamination fees in a recent 15-month period. Adjusting for population, that could be about $17,000 per year for Greenfield.
Perhaps that pales in comparison to a $2 million grant. But it should be discussed in public with public input. Capital expenses are paid once. Operating fees continue forever.
There may be a way to continue the city’s participation in the Springfield MRF and still utilize the grant funding for new trucks. Automated recycling trucks can pick up two smaller 32-gallon carts where paper and cardboard go in one and containers in another. These materials are dumped into separate compartments on the truck and the dual stream system can be retained. If Greenfield chooses this route, these trucks and carts need to be prioritized.
If single stream is still pursued, the city should at least explore collecting glass separately, as that is the primary contaminant of paper when everything is mixed, and it is ground glass that wears equipment sooner.
Under the grant terms, is any flexibility permitted? How can we find out, if the citizens aren’t included in the discussion before decisions are made?
Peg Hall of Greenfield has worked in recycling for municipalities for over 30 years, first as a department head, and then as a consultant. In her retirement, she volunteers with Greening Greenfield, which is urging a public process before any grant terms are finalized, not just education after decisions have been made.