whole it was labour-saving sys
tem.
a
an
Since this study was completed the patentees have introduced a new version of the Garchey system. This retains the essential features of the water-borne system described above. but introduces modifications in the design of the sink outlet and alternative method of disposal after the refuse has been collected in under- ground settlement chambers. The contents of these chambers are now removed by suction to a road tanker which compresses and partly dries the solid refuse and conveys it to tipping site. It is claimed that by these modifications the cost of the system can be substantially reduced. though the patentees retain the in situ incineration method as an alternative.
DISCUSSION OF SYSTEMS
a
The figures already given show that general satisfaction with a re- fuse disposal system for flats is greatest where the overall cost is highest; this is summarized in Table
3.
It thus appears that the operating advantages of the most expensive systems are appreciated, though of course it should be borne in mind that tenants might not be aware of the actual costs incurred.
In considering these indications of general satisfaction it should be borne in mind that each system has a set of circumstances particularly favourable to its adoption, and each has been examined in use mainly under appropriate conditions. These conditions will be discussed more fully.
Dustbins and communal containers
Disposal at ground level involves fewer planning complications than chute disposal, and permits the dis- posal point to be removed some dist- ance from the building. so reducing the likelihood of smell. dust and noise reaching the dwellings. In spite of the obvious disadvantages of the relatively distant disposal point, these methods were found acceptable for low blocks, and sometimes even for higher blocks with lifts.
Dustbins appear to be more suited to small blocks or those in which the
138
Table 3
COSTS AND SATISFACTION WITH SYSTEMS
System
Dustbins
Communal containers
Chutes
Garchey System
Percentage general satisfaction
Overall annual cost per dwelling
83%
48/-
89%
53/-
92%
70/-
95%
170/--
arrangement of entrances makes it practicable to have the dustbins in relatively small groups.
A communal container usually has the capacity of about ten dustbins. It occupies a smaller area, though it may require special access space for collection. A further important ad- vantage lies in the relative speed, economy and cleanliness of the emptying process. Communal con- tainers are generally more appro priate than dustbins for larger blocks. but this system can of course be adopted only where the necessary special collecting vehicles are avail. able.
Chutes
Compared with either communal containers or with dustbins at ground level. chutes have the ad- vantage to the housewife of providing a disposal point, capable of coping with most items of daily refuse, at or near the level of the dwelling. On the other hand, chutes possibly serve to introduce dirt, dust, smell and noise into the building, are subject to blockage and can incur a fire risk. This system is appropriate to high blocks, and again involves the use of special collecting vehicles.
Garchey system
With the Garchey installation there is the special advantage of allowing refuse to be disposed of from within the dwelling. It conveys refuse direct from the kitchen sink to the disposal station ог the collection vehicle through a sealed and un-obtrusive This has considerable pipe system. advantages in the disposal of food waste, since it is convenient for the housewife and greatly reduces the opportunities of such refuse to cause smell. The Garchey system, par- ticularly in its original form, is most
appropriate in large, compactly- planned schemes.
Summing up. it is clear from the inquiry that smell from refuse and disposal equipment was a serious ob- jection among tenants whatever sys- tem was provided. Most complaints came from schemes with dustbins, slightly fewer from those with com- munal containers, fewer again from those with chutes and least from those with the Garchey system. With the first three systems a prime re- quirement to overcome objections to smell is the provision of adequate disposal capacity. It has already been suggested that for ordinary households the average disposal capacity should be 3 ft2 per dwelling per week with dustbins or communal containers and 3-5 ft with chutes. If smell and dirt from refuse disposal systems are to be avoided it is neces sary also that tenants should use their installation with reasonable care and consideration, and that there should be a good standard of main- tenance and caretaking. Wrapping of refuse in paper before disposal is desirable.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
This Digest has dealt with the main methods of refuse disposal in use in Local Authority dwellings in Britain at the time of the sur- vey. It is known that other systems are used abroad and that develop- ments, both of existing methods and of new systems, are proceeding in Britain. For instance, reference has already been maded to the modi- fication of the Garchey system, while several makes of 'sink grinder' are also now
on the market. These ap- pliances are fixed to the outlet from the kitchen sink and grind or shred solid matter by electrical power be- fore passing it to the normal waste.
THE HONG KONG & FAR EAST BUILDER – VOLUME 18. NUMBER 5