download the full article here - EISRJC

The practice of treating uncollected
waste through backyard burning not only
contribute to the amount of greenhouse gasses
that causes global warming but also release
some toxic substances into the atmosphere
leaving a toxic residue in the air. Since there
will be a reduction in the amount of uncollected
waste or zero uncollected waste by year 2015
(Scenario C), burning will eventually ceased.
Tuguegarao City will then be free of residual ash
and unburnable residues that are usually taken
into the dumpsite for disposal. The residual
ash contains a variety of toxic components that
make it an environmental hazard if not disposed
of properly.
The Environmental Protection Agency
has found alarming high levels of dioxins, furans,
lead, and cadmium in burned ash. This must
also be true to the burned waste in Tuguegarao
City especially so because the burned waste
contains plastics and used batteries. These
toxic materials are even more concentrated in
fly ash (lighter, airborne particles capable of
penetrating deep into the lungs) than in heavy
bottom ash.
Recycling is usually a better alternative
to either dumping or burning waste. It saves
money, energy and land space while also
reducing pollution. It encourages individual
awareness and responsibility for the refuse
produced. However, recycling and composting
programs will only be successful through
behavioral change by the city residents.
Segregation of waste is the key factor followed
by a change in the lifestyle. Programs on
recycle, reuse and reduce are very important
and should be supported by the city government.
City government should implement no-use
of plastics or simply use of biodegradable as
bagging material in commercial establishments
and in market.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Decision Support System (DSS) was
developed to analyze and simulate the future
scenarios of the solid waste management of
J.B. Guzman
Tuguegarao City using GIS and Stella modeling
software. The primary and secondary data and
information collected were population, per capita
waste generation, average annual growth rates
of population and solid waste composition in
order to analyze and predict the total volume
of waste generated and the corresponding
volume of compostable, recyclable, collected,
uncollected waste and compost.
The four sources of solid waste were
households, commercial establishments,
institutions, and markets each generating at
a rate of 1,012 m3, 384 m3, 209 m3 and 122
m3 of solid waste weekly that is equivalent to
total waste generation at a rate of 1,745 m3/
wk.The waste composition per identifiable
item was 279 m3 (16%) paper, 105 m3 (6%)
plastic containers, 70 m3 (4%) metals, 70 m3
(4%) glass, 279 m3 (16%) yard waste, 506 m3
(29%) food waste, 122 m3 (7%) other organics,
209 m3 (12%) other plastics, 70 m3 (4%) inert,
17 m3 (1%) hazardous waste and 17 m3 (1%)
special waste. The paper, plastic containers,
metals, and glass were classified as recyclable
waste (30%); the yard waste, food waste, and
other organics were classified as compostable
waste (52%); while the inert, hazardous waste,
and special waste were the residual waste
(18%).
The DSS was used to search for best
waste management options reflecting trend of
future scenarios. Three among these scenarios
were; Scenario A which is the composting
of market compostable waste, Scenario B
which is the recycling of institutional waste in
addition to Scenario A, and Scenario C which
is the composting and recycling of waste in all
sectors.
Considering the problem on the low
recovery of waste, the composting and recycling
activities was proposed. Composting of market
waste (Scenario A) could result to a conversion
of compostable market waste from 92 m3/
wk to 237 m3/wk while recycling institutional
waste (Scenario B) could result to a recovery of
institutional waste from 171 m3/wk to 225 m3/
29