Waste management


Published on


Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Waste management

  1. 1. Municipal Solid Waste Management
  2. 2. What is Solid Waste In a nutshell “ Solid waste can be regarded as refuse or waste from any kind of source”. But any refuse or waste can be economic resource to others. Mining FlyAsh Agriculture: o Dairy o Agriculture residues And Municipal Solid Waste-State of concern
  3. 3.  Estimated waste generation is 1,00,000 MT/day Per capita waste generation ranges between 0.20 to 0.60 kg. Waste collection efficiency in bigger sized cities ranges from 70 to 90% and in small sized towns it is up to 50-60%. Local authorities spend less 5% of their budget on waste disposal and maximum cost is incurred on street sweeping and collection and transportation of waste.
  4. 4. MSW GENERATION - NATIONAL SCENARIO MAJOR DEFICIENCIES• Littering of garbage due to unorganized primary collection• Provision and operation of interim storage facilities unsatisfactory• Irregular garbage lifting• Transportation system not synchronize with storage facilities• Processing/treatment of MSW not practiced• Final disposal through dumping
  5. 5. Status of Solid Waste Management in Class I Cities and Class II TownsCITIES / TOWNS CLASS I CLASS IINo. of Cities 299 345Total Population 1281138655 22375588Waste Generation 48134 1454(MT/d)Mode of collectionManually 50% 78 %Trucks 49 % 21 %Others 1% 1%DisposalDumping 94 % 93 %Composting 5% 6%Others 1% 1%
  6. 6. Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Description Percent by weight Vegetable, leaves 40.15 Grass 3.80 Paper 0.81 Plastic 0.62 Glass/ceramics 0.44 Metal 0.64 Stones/ashes 41.81 Miscellaneous 11.73
  7. 7. Quantity of Municipal Solid Wastes Generation in MetroCitiesS.No City Municipal solid Waste (TPD) Per capita waste (Kg/day)1. Ahmadabad 1,683 0.5852. Bangalore 2,000 0.4843. Bhopal 546 0.5144. Bombay 5,355 0.4365. Calcutta 3,692 0.3836. Coimbatore 350 0.4297. Delhi 4,000 0.4758. Hyderabad 1,566 0.3829. Indore 350 0.32110 Jaipur 580 0.39811 Kanpur 1,200 0.64012 Kochi 347 0.51813 Lucknow 1,010 0.62314 Ludhiana 400 0.38415 Madras 3,124 0.65716 Madurai 370 0.39217 Nagpur 443 0.27318 Patna 330 0.36019 Pune 700 0.31220 Surat 900 0.60021 Vadodara 400 0.38922 Varanasi 412 0.40023 Visakhapatnam 300 0.400
  9. 9. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK RESPONSIBILITIES Implementation and Enforcement development of Monitoring infrastructure compliance of prescribed standards Grant of Authorization Submission of for waste Annual Reports State Pollution Municipal processing/ Authorities disposal facilities Control Boards/ Pollution Control Committees Dept. of District Urban MagistrateDevelopment Annual Reports on status of implementation Other Metro- cities and Central Pollution cities towns Control Board
  10. 10.  Enacted “Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 Rules lay emphasis on seeking participation of citizens in waste segregation, prohibiting littering of garbage, proper storage of waste and efficient transportation of waste for its processing and final disposal. Specifications to be followed for land filling to protect environmental pollution and adoption of appropriate waste processing technologies has been emphasized. The Rules are applicable to each town irrespective of its population.
  11. 11. Schedule I- Time TargetSchedule II- Procedures for collections, segregation, storage, transport processing & disposal of SWSchedule –III- specifications for land fill sites.
  12. 12. Applicable to all Municipal AuthoritiesObtain authorization- through Form-I from SPCBComply the provisions as per schedule IAnnual Report in Form-II to: - Secretary State Deptt. of Urban Developmentand DM with a copy to SPCB
  13. 13. Violation of the provisions Improvement in landfill site as per Rules (Schedule I) is not being done Identification of new site as required under Schedule I Submission of annual report as required under Section 4a
  14. 14. RESPONSIBILTIES OF MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES• Imple me nta tion of S che dule I a nd othe r provis ions of the Rule s• Infra s tructure de ve lopme nt for colle ction, s tora ge , s e gre ga tion, tra ns porta tion a nd dis pos a l of MS W a s pe r S che dule II• Obta ining a uthoriza tion for s e tting up wa s te proce s s ing a nd dis pos a l fa cilitie s from S P CBs / P CCs• Furnis hing a nnua l re port a nd a ccide nt re porting to S e cre ta ry (UD)/ Dis trict Ma gis tra te
  15. 15. RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE/UT GOVERNMENTS• Ove ra ll e nforce me nt in me tro-citie s in the S ta te / UT – S e cre ta ry-in-cha rge , De pt. of Urba n De ve lopme nt• Ove ra ll e nforce me nt in othe r la rge citie s a nd towns – Dis trict Ma gis tra te / De puty Commis s ione r of the conce rne d dis tricts
  16. 16.  Lack of adequate financial resources to implement specified provisions of the rule. Slow progress in ensuring segregation of waste. In adequate infrastructure to meet the requirements for collection, storage and transportation of waste. Local bodies not conversant and exposed with intricacies of application of appropriate waste processing technologies. Comprehensive specification on landfills are difficult to meet due to ‘high cost of construction and operation’ including non-existence of adequate number of indigenous firms to undertake the jobs.
  17. 17. CONSTRAINTS IN IMPLEMENTATION• Ove rburde n on loca l a uthoritie s due to uncontrolle d urba niza tion tha t s tra ins the s ys te m• Fra gme nte d ma na ge me nt a pproa ch whe re more tha n one de pa rtme nt is involve d a nd la ck of inte r- de pa rtme nta l coordina tion• Ina de qua te fina ncia l re s ource s of municipa l a uthoritie s to unde rta ke improve me nt progra ms a s re quire d unde r S che dule II, III a nd IV• La ck of tra ine d ma npowe r a t a ll le ve ls• La ck of te chnica l a s s is ta nce for s e le ction of a ppropria te te chnologie s
  19. 19. COLLECTION AND STORAGE (contd…)MAIN OBSERVATIONS : • More than 40% of the receptacles in poor physical conditions (broken walls, roofs, doors) • 20 - 25% of the receptacles are hotspots • Substantial no. of dhalaos in good physical conditions converted and used as office space • Low garbage lifting frequency • Dhalao design and the machinery used for lifting garbage not matching. In most cases, the machinery responsible for damaged dhalaos
  20. 20. TRANSPORTATION• One-third of the collection trucks observed on road do not cover garbage during transport• The cover (jute or plastic) used in most of the vehicles is often in bad shape• At any given time, a high 30% of collection vehicles are not in working conditions, depleting the already lean fleet• Vehicles are too high for manual lifting and filling of garbage from dhalaos
  22. 22. COLLECTION AND STORAGE (contd…)MAIN OBSERVATIONS :• About 15% of the receptacles in poor physical conditions (broken walls, roofs, doors)• Horticultural wastes collection and lifting needs improvement• Garbage stations – in general, are working satisfactorily; however, segregated wastes observed to be mixed again at the time of collection in these stations• Rag pickers up lifting project – in association with NGO – a positive step worth emulation
  23. 23. TRANSPORTATION• Most of the trucks used for transport of garbage is fitted with permanent covers• Garbage lifting crew provided with brooms and lime powder to sweep and disinfect in and around the dustbin after lifting - a practice worth emulation
  24. 24. WASTE PROCESSING (COMPOSTING)• Estimated generation of wastes: 300 MT/ day• Applied for authorization from DPCC• Processing less than 70 MT/ against 200 day MT/day• Only around 10% of wastes converted into compost• Good quality compost and regular sale of product• Needs complete renovation or replacement
  25. 25. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS• Adopt of professional approach for MSW management• Prepare of MSW Management Master Plan• Set short, medium and long-term waste reduction targets and programs to implement• Renovate compost plant for full-conversion of garbage generated area into compost• Develop plans to compost horticultural wastes
  26. 26. Partnership Model of Community Based Solid Waste ManagementDONOR NGO/Public sector provides technical support Providing and facilitation for Fund community based SWM and composting Coordinating the MoEF programme NGO / Communities Public Sector Communities NGO Ensures the participate in Door-to-MC & PWD quality of compost Door waste collection Providing land and other programme and contribute towards its logistics Cost. Also produce Fertilizer Companies Compost and sell to private SectorPUBLIC PRIVATE COMMUNITY
  27. 27. What should be the role of an NGOs The following roles are suggested: Public awareness; Model Preparation/Experimental/ Research; Bridging between Govt. & Society, organizing residence as pressure groups; Acting as a buffer zone between the community and the municipal authorities.
  28. 28. What should be done by NGOs The following suggestions are offered in the hope that some of them may be of some benefit: Do keep away from political activity; Do consider carefully what can be done with available resources; Do try to evolve a system of self help rather than depending on the municipal corporation; Do aim at cooperation rather than confrontation with the municipalities; Do keep in contact with other NGOs in the area to avoid to duplication of work; Do encourage the target groups to focus more on their duties and less on their eights; Don’t arouse too many expectations otherwise failure to fulfill them all may lead to withdrawal are disappointment.
  29. 29.  Cities having population > 1 million targeted for ensuring compliance with the rules. Set up reasonable number of demonstration facilities with Government financial support for the benefit of other local bodies. Re-set the “simplified” specifications on land filling particularly for smaller local bodies with due regard to prevention of pollution .
  30. 30. Key issues in managing Municipal Solid Waste  Phenomenal growth in urban population is creating solid waste disposal problems;  Alternative service delivery is required?  Community based initiatives;  What is needed to nurture community based initiatives;  The need for research;  Need for Networking;  Innovations: e.g.Preventing spillage of garbage, Vermiculture, drain cleaning street sweeping etc.
  31. 31. Thank you