Challenges in waste mgmt in apts

Arathi Manay
at Daily Dump
19th Feb 2011

  Waste management challenges

  Handling roadblocks, finding potential
solutions

Using a real-life example
Brigade Millennium Mayflower
in JP Nagar 7th Phase

Arathi Manay at Daily Dump, 19th Feb 2011

  The System – Waste collection and disposal
system established by the builder
  Responsibility of managing the garbage
  Volume generated
  Types of garbage, Segregation
  BBMP involvement
  Attitude of residents


  Garbage bags
  Chute, through 15 floors… chute room
  An investment made by the developer to give
apartments the luxury of convenient disposal
  involves considerable set up costs (pump, hydraulic
doors, etc.)
  Regular maintenance costs
  Housekeeping staff not a part of household the
waste-disposal system
  Except for cleaning the chute room


  Garbage handling – the responsibility of the
Management Committee
  Tenants – more than half the occupants
  Volume generated is huge
  At Mayflower with 220 flats, about 300 kg a day
  Mixed-up waste
  Garbage bags burst open with the fall
  Reusable, recyclable, hazardous waste goes to
landfills


  BBMP does not collect garbage from apartments
  We need to make our own arrangements
  Hire a BBMP-licensed contractor to carry the waste to
landfills
  Manage the waste within our own premises
  Residents want the comforts that they paid for
when they bought the flat
  They pay a maintenance fee so that their waste is
managed by others
  High turnover rate of maids and tenants


  Where ever the contractor is allowed for
the day

  No fixed place

  Dumping site changes frequently
depending on social pressures


  Dry waste segregation was introduced in BM
Mayflower in Nov 2008 through the
‘Blue Drum’ campaign
  Door-to-door visits to train residents
  Segregation guide
  Training of maids, house-keeping staff, security
  Painting the blue drums activity for children and
residents
  Voluntary – no penalty for non-compliance


  Blue drums
  Collected daily
by house-keeping
  Transported
to basement
  Secondary
segregation
  Sold to recyclers
  Proceeds kept for the staff

  Reinforcement
  Retraining new maids, residents


  E-waste kept separately
  Collected by Ash recyclers


8000
7000
Average per month
6000
Over 26 months
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0


300
Average per month
250

200

150

100

50

0

Average monthly income – Rs 1,000/-


  Segregation done by some residents, but not
adequate
  Lots of dry waste still going down the chute

  Wet waste still going to landfills


  The main roadblock – the chute
  The chute = roadside dustbin
  Anything-anytime-anyhow disposal

  Control usage of the chute to housekeeping
(maybe use it to move some of the dry waste to
the basement)
  Close the chute to residents
  Door-to-door collection (as is done in most
residential apartments)

  Send purely wet waste (kitchen waste) to
landfills
  Handle it in the vicinity – after all it is 70%
water

  Different options evaluated
  Scale-able to 220-250 homes
  No need for large expenditure
  Low running expenses


  An experimental model – with the help of
Mr Vellore Srinivasan

  Composting
  In a specially-designed trolley
  On the terrace – good wind flow, sheltered from
rain and direct sun

  Cattle-shed
  Cattle edible food

  Composting Trolley
  Metal
  4’ l x 3’ w x 3’ h
  Capacity 500 kg


  Compost in 50-odd days

  One trolley can serve 220 homes for about 10
days, after which it can be reused after about 50
days
  5 such trolleys would be required

  If cattle-edible items are sent to the cattle shed
  2 trolleys would suffice


  I can throw anything, anyhow, anytime

  Someone else will clean it up

  And I will pay them for doing it


  Needs bagging of the waste thus increasing
plastic usage

  Untied bags and non-bagged wet waste
splutters the chute and the room

  Regular maintenance, cleaning required


  Grease and garbage sludge accumulates along
the chute – fire hazard
  Attracts roaches, flies, snakes
  Untreated waste lying for more than 24hrs
  Is a health hazard
  Causes foul odour everywhere near the chute
room
  Unhygienic for garbage collecting workers and
residents who visit basement


  Dry waste – Blue drums
  E-waste – Recyclers
  EPS/Thermacol – collected and disposed
separately
  Cattle-edible waste segregated by about 40
volunteer homes
  Collected door-to-door everyday around noon
  Sent to cattle shed
  Garden waste – composting trolleys
  The rest – down the chute and garbage truck

  Changing the system put in place by the
builder, to become environmentally friendly, is
a big challenge
  The System put in place by the builder is the
one that gets accepted, by default
  GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

  Enforcement of rules (like segregation) by an
authority (BBMP) is essential
  Voluntary effort by residents is not realistic to
expect

  Refrain from the inclusion of chutes in buildings in
India
  Designate an area for waste management at the design
stage
  On the ground, basement, rooftop or combination of these
  Depending on the nature of the project – the total ground area,
area around the building, number of flats, height of building,
etc.
  Highlight the waste management area and make it a
‘stand-out’ feature
  ‘Facility’ – just as STP, generator back-up, etc.
  ‘Green initiative’ – at par with solar power, rain water
harvesting, etc.


  Brigade (builders) have earmarked a site that
can be used for waste management by all the
blocks of Brigade Millennium
WE WILL BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE WASTE
WHERE IT IS GENERATED.
  BBMP is set to enforce segregation-at-source in
Puttenahalli by insisting that apartment waste
be segregated before it leaves the premises
MAYBE THE CHUTE WILL BE FORCED TO CLOSE.


Challenges in waste mgmt in apts

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Challenges in waste mgmt in apts