| At Last | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A Trial Page on Garbage | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Thinking about Garbage TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE CAMPUS RECYCLING PROGRAMME Features of garbage ststem at IITD. 1) The existing system did not discriminate between the different components of garbage. 2) Garbage was seen as WASTE and hence not useful. 3) People regarded garbage as unclean and hence to be thrown away. 4) Food waste contaminates and decreases the value of the other recyclable wastes. And is also the reason for the smell of decay in garbage. 5) The products used in the system were very poorly designed. This refers to the wheel barrows, trolleys and trailer presently in use by Sanitation (Horticulture) Department. 6) The existing system is not ecologically efficient, and lacks coherence. 7) The IITD has not sent out any garbage in 39 years. All of it has gone to landfills on campus. This is a horrifying and shameful fact. All this garbage all over the place makes the campus an extremely unhygienic place. 8) The collection centres (1-31) always have garbage lying outside them. The consensus among the solutions was that IITD, being a premier institution, should lead the way. It should set up and demonstrate a functioning state of the art system as a model for the rest of society. This should be as a full fledged campus recycling programme. The components of the solutions therefore stressed the following points: 1) There should be no garbage dump/landfill on campus. 2) Garbage should be treated as resource and not waste. 3) Good housekeeping (management) coupled with well designed products would be better than a technological or scientific solutions (Garbage versus solid waste management). The spirit of the new deign would be best exemplified in the principles of: a) Cleanliness: Keeping High Environmental Standards. The environment should be kept clean. b) Encouragement: System and Product Design, And visual communication to contribute to helping people keep the system functioning. The residents and visitors are encouraged to use the system in a correct way. c) Utilization: Recycling to the maximum extent possible. Garbage is to be treated as a resource and not waste. We like to see around us a world that is clean and demonstrates principles of sound ecological thinking. Different functional spaces produce different kinds of garbage. Garbage can be seen as coming from; 1) Residential Areas Houses Shopping Centre School 2) Hostel Areas Hostels Messes and Canteens 3) Academic Areas Academic blocks Workshops Laboratories Cafeteria and Vends 4) Outdoors and Horticulture Ib) Composition Classification of Garbage: 1) Biodegradable 2) Other Garbage may contain: 1) Food Cooked food/leftovers Vegetable/fruit peels, rind Egg shells, bones, tea leaves 2) Paper Stationary Newspaper Magazines Envelopes Cards Newsletters Reports Packaging Corrugated boxes 3) Plastics Polythene bags Pens/refills Cold drink and coffee cups Broken buckets/mugs Styrofoam and laminated packagings Tooth paste tubes Tooth brushes OHP film Files/folders Disposable razors Bottles 4) Metal Blades Broken equipment Pipes/rods/tube pieces Tins, cosmetic containers, food containers Workshop waste 5) Glass Bulbs Bottles jars Tubelights Mirrors, window panes Lab equipment Broken glasses and ceramic bowls 6) Hazardous substances Batteries Nail polish/removers Spray cans Perfumes Chemicals Paints Solvents Poisons Insecticide Disinfectant 7) Infectious substances Bandages Sanitary napkins Disposable diapers Condoms 8) Other Animal carcasses Wood, saw dust Cloth Ic) The existing system Picture here II) A coherent system articulated Discussion The thesis of how things should be. Vision. Imagine a campus that is a model for the recycling of refuse for the whole country. Municipalities and people at large look upon the residents of IITD as role models of a cooperative system. The system could look like this ... Brief 1) Part of a larger eco-efficiency movement. 2) Code of conduct set up. Expectation from users clearly articulated. Booklet for each home, department, room. 3) All residents and visitors know the working of system. All new entrants to campus given booklet and trained in the use of this system. 4) Bins/collectors should facilitate segregation. 5) Large number of bins located conveniently. 6) Vandal proof. 7) Colour coded with signage and symbols. 8) All transport devices and products reinforce segregation. 9) The end of cycle station must contain weatherproof storage facilities for the segregated garbage. 10) The end of cycle - reuse, recycle, destroy - responsibilities to be articulated. And procedures for them to follow also specified. Preferably these are NGO�s or eco-organisations. Eg. Earth/DA takes all the paper/cloth for recycling, All the plastic is similarly given to an NGO. IIa) Segregation Methods of segregation: 1) At source and 2) At collection point. The former is suitable for campus recycling whereas the latter has very low efficiency and is suitable only as an interim measure. At Source: 1) Ecological 2) Cleaner 3) Easier handling 4) Permits better recycling 5) Remunerative 6) Showcase 7) Recycling system At Collection Point: 1) Similar flaws as in existing system 2) Unhygienic, smelly, dirty. 3) Reduces value of paper and plastics. 4) Hazardous 5) Waste management system IIb) Handling Concept drawings here IIc) Use/Reuse Chart of use and reuse. Item Reuse Reduce Recycle Destroy 1) Food Composting 2) Paper Other side Electronic Hand Made Paper 3) Plastics Bags 2nd use and building 4) Metal Smelt 5) Glass Building 6) Hazardous substances Specialised care 7) Infectious substances Incinerate 8) Other Animal carcasses Cremate Wood, saw dust Secondary use Cloth Hand Made Paper Note: A comprehensive list of components of garbage was attempted. The objective was to predict the end use processes of the various components. III) Where do we go from here Describe the steps that need to be taken to initiate the move towards the new system. 1) Change all the products in use. Wheel barrows etc. and make them more segregation friendly. See drg. Avinash project for details and costing. 2) Install appropriate bins in dropsites. See drg. and costing. 3) Increase the number of bins to the optimum level in academic area. Each bin to be 4 part segregated (paper, plastic, misc., food). See dwg. 4) Domestic waste management through two bins. Dwg and sample. 5) Indicate what items the system will not handle. (Hazardous substances, infectious substances, broken glass) 6) Phased introduction by separating the garbage management of the areas: a) Scheme for hostels b) Scheme for academic areas. c) Scheme for hospital. d) Residential areas i) Taxila. ii) Vaishali iii) IP iv) Nalanda v) New Campus vi) Mini campus vii) Old Campus, to be segregated? 7) Vermi and other composting to be separated from the rest of recycling system and can be zonally distributed. Or as a function of horticulture. For example all the present bins (1-31) can be converted to VC points. 8) NSS/student volunteers can participate in an awareness campaign, after the installation of new system. Also volunteers from student/faculty/staff. T shirts, cable TV. School. Neighbourhood recycling committees. 9) Corporate sponsorship for this experiment, can be explored. 10) IITD campus recycling programme website and publication. 11) Live laboratory: Training of people from other parts of the country in managing and running an effective recycling programme. IV) Summary Concept: Two channel design of recycling system. Channel I -------------- Food waste ----------------------- Composting Channel II ------------- Other wastes ---------------------- Segregated drop site Basic Questions to be answered 1) How to make compost? Separate booklet being made. 2) Where should the composting happen? Centralised or dispersed? 3) Segregate at source or at collection? At source. 4) How is segregation to be done at home? Two bins. 5) How is segregation to be done at Dropsites? Many bins. 6) What is the frequency of collection from dropsites? Staggered or daily as it is now? 7) What should be the operations of emptying the dropsite bins? 8) What kind of vehicle will collect this? 9) Where will it be taken? Collection centres. Nomenclature Waste Food waste Other items Original name Garbage All the refuse Dropsites Primary collection centres Recycling To replace waste management | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Summary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE CAMPUS RECYCLING PROGRAMME Segragation at source. A) Categories I Reduce Reuse Recycle B) Categories II 1) Residential Areas 2) Commercial Areas 3) Hostels and Messes/Canteens 4) Academic Areas 5) Workshops 6) Laboratories 7) Cafeteria and Vends 8) Horticulture 9) Hospital 10) Construction waste C) Categories III 1) Collection 2) Transport 3) Disposal/Recycling/Composting No. Products Unit Cost (Rs) Nos. Total (Rs) Remarks 1. Wheel Barrow 1,700/- 20 34,000/- Prototyped 2. Drop Sites/ Segregated 10,000/- 30 3,00,000/- Concept Finalised 3. Outdoor Bins 800/- 50 40,000/- 4. Van CNG/ Electric -- -- -- Sponsor M&M 5. Collection Centre 80,000/- 01 60,000/- 1st Design 6. Bins in Acad. Areas 600/- 150 90,000/- Concept 7. Household Bins 250/- Participatory Total 5,44,000/- D) Categories IV 1) Campaign: SS 1 Co-ordinator Rahul 2 Articles in Magazines SPS-3117 3 Email SPS/Manojava 4 Design GVS of Posters and Bags Avinash, Ravish of TShirts Lokesh, Devanuj 5 Plays Ketan, Sangeeta - 8650 6 Campaign SS Ravi 2130/8650 Johra - 4147 Shubho Debashish 7 Exhibition Naveen, Devesh 8 Volunteers Coordnation Rattan Ketan 2) Infrastructure: PV, AS & GVS 3) Scope of work document: Committee; Co-ord - HKS. 4) Contract awarding: IE. Basic Issues to be answered: 1) Collection: Only from Drop Sites as now. Segregation at source - to be handled through campaign. Trial at Taxila? 2) Transport: Existing methodology with different products. To collection centre. 3) Disposal: To to developed for hospital waste + other harmful wastes. 4) Recycling: From collection centre. To be worked out through contractor. 5) Composting: Prof. PV to make set up handover ready. 6) Infrastructure: Sponsored and Avinash prototypes. Minutes of the meeting called by Prof. H.K. Sehgal, Chairman, Solid Waste Management Committee, on 24th March, at 3.30 PM at MDes Studio. The meeting was attended by: 1) Prof H.K. Sehgal 2) Mr. S. Swaminathan 3) Prof. R.R. Gaur 4) Prof. Padma Vasudevan 5) Mr. B.N. Yadav 6) Dr. Uday Sahani 7) Dr. M.R. Ravi 8) Dr. S.P. Singh 9) G.V. Soumitri Agenda: The objective of the meeting was to discuss the methodology of the waste management at IITD. 1) HKS in his briefing mentioned the 3 components of waste: Biodegradable, Non-biodegradable, and horticulture waste. On the methodology of who does it: we are still open, it can be either an NGO (Vatavaran), by ourselves(contracted out), or a combined effort. The modalities for this need to be worked out. 2) RRG: Spoke of methodology and stressed the need to revisualize the problems and visualize the solutions. And set up the criteria then seek the participation of the contractor. He stressed the need for a professional body to execute the work. And the need to sell this idea to the administration. 3) US: 4) BNY 5) SS 6) SPS 7) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Hang On | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I will be back with more details
|
|
Favourite links
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been visited
|