TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
PASCHIMANCHAL CAMPUS
LAMACHAUR, POKHARA-16

A FINAL YEAR REPORT

ON

“SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SANITARY LANDFILL

FOR POKHARA METROPOLITAN CITY ”

SUBMITTED BY:
Aadarsha Timilsina (PAS075BCE002)
Aashish Acharya (PAS075BCE005)
Ajay Sharma (PAS075BCE009)
Amir Karki (PAS075BCE011)
Ashish Dhakal (PAS075BCE018)
Siddhartha Shrestha (PAS075BCE126)

SUBMITTED TO:
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
PASCHIMANCHAL CAMPUS, LAMACHAUR, POKHARA-16,
NEPAL

MAY,2023
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We express hearty thanks to our project supervisor Er. Sunil Rakhal for proper
guidance. we extend our gratitude to Er.Nirmal Baral (Campus Chief), Ar. Baburam
Bhandari (HOD, civil ) and our all respected department members for their good
guidance, care and teaching, curriculum theory, practical and extra moral values and
professional values during this whole journey. We would like to thank our colleagues,
and all those who had supported directly and indirectly to complete our project
successfully.
The project opportunity in “ Site selection and Design of sanitary landfill site of
Pokhara metropolitan city” was a great chance for learning and professional
development. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the Department of Civil
Engineering, Paschimanchal Campus, for providing us a wonderful opportunity to
upgrade our knowledge. The hope and confidence has grown in us as it has enhanced
our knowledge in real working environment.
Throughout the project, we have also learnt many things about the sanitary landfill
site, and we perceive this opportunity as a big milestone in our career development.
We will strive to use gained skills and knowledge in the best possible way, and we
will continue to work on their improvement, in order to attain desired career
objectives.
1 Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.......................................................................2

1.2 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................2
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY........................................................................................2
1.4 LIMITATIONS...............................................................................................3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................4

2.1 Historical Waste management Practices.........................................................4

2.2 Environmental acts and guidelines for waste management.............................5
2.3 Waste management Hierarchy.........................................................................9
2.4 Landfill Selection using GIS.........................................................................11
2.5 AHP...............................................................................................................12
2.6 Landfilling and Semi-Aerobic Landfill.........................................................13

3 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................15

3.1 Study Location...............................................................................................15

3.2 Selection Criteria;..........................................................................................16
3.3 Data Collection and Processing.....................................................................16
3.4 Landfill Design Methodology.......................................................................17

4 SITE SELECTION USING GIS AND AHP........................................................18

4.1 Preparing layer map of Criteria.....................................................................18

4.2 Restriction of location and buffer zones........................................................18
4.3 Sub criteria.....................................................................................................18

Slope.....................................................................................................................19
Settlement.............................................................................................................19
Lakes.....................................................................................................................19
Rivers....................................................................................................................20
Airports.................................................................................................................20
Roads....................................................................................................................20
Land use................................................................................................................21
Soil type................................................................................................................21

i
 4.4 Determining of Relative Weights of criteria Using AHP..............................22
4.5 Rating Scale...................................................................................................22

Pairwise Comparison Matrix................................................................................24

Standardized Matrix..............................................................................................31
Consistency Index(CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR)............................................32
Saaty’s CIr values for matrices are given by the following table.........................33
Result....................................................................................................................33

4.6 Preparation of Final Map...............................................................................33

4.7 Selected Site Description...............................................................................40

5 DESIGN OF SANITARY LANDFILL AND LEACHATE TREATMENT

SYSTEM......................................................................................................................42

5.1 Estimation of Future Solid Waste Generation...............................................42

Quantification and characterization of Municipal Solid waste.............................42

Future population forecast....................................................................................43
Study of quantity and composition of waste diverted to landfill..........................45
Future waste generation and landfilling waste for design period.........................48

5.2 Design of Landfill Size..................................................................................49

5.3 Design of Landfill Liner system....................................................................50

Bottom Liner system.............................................................................................50

Final cover............................................................................................................51

5.4 Leachate Volume Calculation.......................................................................52

5.5 Leachate collection system............................................................................54

Estimation of peak leachate generation................................................................55

Calculation of drainage pipe distance (L) by mound’s model..............................55

5.6 Leachate treatment system............................................................................58

Design of septic tank.............................................................................................60

Sizing of the wetland............................................................................................60
KBOD for HF wetland.............................................................................................61
Calculation of sizing of HF wetland.....................................................................61
Depth of HF wetland system................................................................................62

ii
 Bed cross-section area for HF wetland.................................................................62

5.7 Design of Waste Retaining Wall...................................................................65

6 Design Summary...................................................................................................70

6.1 REFERENCES..............................................................................................72

iii
FIGURE 1 WASTE MANAGEMENT HIREARCY ....................................................................................................10
FIGURE 2POKHARA RESOURCE MAP[7].........................................................................................................15
FIGURE 3 AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED (SELECTED) LANDFILL SITE.........................................................................41
FIGURE 4 PIE CHART SHOWING WASTE COMPOSITION OF GENERATION POINT[14]..................................................42
FIGURE 5 FORECASTED POPULATION..............................................................................................................44
FIGURE 6ESTIMATED FUTURE WASTE COMPOSITION..........................................................................................46

iv
TABLE 1 GIS DATA TYPE AND SOURCE............................................................................................................16
TABLE 2 RATING SCORE AND DEFINITION........................................................................................................23
TABLE 3 PAIRWISE COMPARISION MATRIX......................................................................................................24
TABLE 4 STANDARDIZED MATRIX..................................................................................................................31
TABLE 5 CONSISTENCY INDEX.......................................................................................................................32
TABLE 6 SAATYS CR VALUES........................................................................................................................33
TABLE 7 CRITERIA AND SUBCRITERIA RATINGS USED IN GIS................................................................................35
TABLE 8 PARAMATERS AND THEIR RELATIVE WEIGHTAGE USED IN SITE COMPARISION OF LANDFILL FOR KATHMANDU
VALLEY[13].....................................................................................................................................37

TABLE 9 IMPACT MATRIX COMPARISION OF FOUR CANDIDATE SITES.....................................................................37

TABLE 10 POPULATION DATA OF PMC [8], [16].............................................................................................43
TABLE 11 INCREMENTAL INCREASE METHOD..................................................................................................44
TABLE 12 FORECASTED POPULATION.............................................................................................................44
TABLE 13 DENSITY OF WASTE RECEIVED BY LANDFILL........................................................................................46
TABLE 14 MATERIAL FLOW PLANNING...........................................................................................................47
TABLE 15 PROJECTION OF WASTE QUANTITIES DURING DESIGN PERIOD................................................................48

v
ABSTRACT
The newly constructed Pokhara International Airport has began the operation from
January 1,2023. The site attracts a host of birds, including several threatened vulture
species, and conservationists warn there’s a high risk of bird strikes once flights
begin.The landfill site lies 1.5 km from the airport on the banks of the Seti River.
According to Civil Aviation Rule 2002, no person shall be allowed to store and dump
solid waste openly in and around the airport boundary of 3 km because it may invite
risk of bird aircraft strike hazard. To overcome this, a highly suitable site is selected
for the landfill using GIS (Geographic Information system), design and analysis of the
landfill is done for Pokhara Metropolitan City in Kaski district. The site is selected
based on the physical, social and environmental criteria. The physical characteristics
taken are the land use/land cover map and transportation map. The rivers, lakes and
geomorphology maps come under the environmental criteria. The final suitability map
is obtained by different maps using AHP (Analytical hierarchy process) and weighted
overlay analysis in GIS. The site is selected according to the landfill capacity,
economic haulage, and cost of acquisition of land. The design of the landfill is done
by keeping in mind the solid waste generation for the 10 years.A conceptual design of
Semi-Aerobic landfill is done and site layout is prepared. Horizontal Flow constructed
wetland system was adopted for the treatment of leachate produced in the landfill.

vi
1. INTRODUCTION

Solid waste management (SWM) is the collection, transport, processing, and disposal
of solid waste materials. It is a critical component of environmental protection and
public health. In Nepal, SWM is a major challenge. The country produces an
estimated 0.6 million tons of solid waste per year, but only a small fraction of this
waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. The majority of solid waste is
disposed of in open dumps, which pose a serious threat to human health and the
environment.Early civilizations, such as those in ancient Greece and Rome, developed
rudimentary waste disposal systems. As cities and populations grew, waste
management became a more pressing concern. The concept of sanitary landfilling
began to emerge in the 19th century as a response to the unsanitary conditions in
rapidly urbanizing areas. The modern landfilling practices we see today started to take
shape in the mid-20th century.A sanitary landfill is a controlled method of disposing
of solid waste. It is designed to minimize the environmental impacts of waste
disposal, such as air and water pollution, and the spread of disease. Sanitary landfills
are typically lined with impermeable materials to prevent the migration of leachate
(liquid waste) into the surrounding soil and groundwater. They are also designed to
capture methane gas, which is a greenhouse gas, and use it for energy production.
Leachate is a term used to describe the liquid that forms when water passes through or
percolates into waste materials in landfills. It is the result of rainwater, snowmelt, or
other liquids coming into contact with decomposing organic waste, as well as other
materials present in the landfill. Leachate can pose significant environmental and
health risks if not properly managed.
The selection of a sanitary landfill site is a complex process that involves a number of
factors, including the availability of land, geology and hydrology of the site,
proximity to population centers and cost of development and operation. GIS
(geographic information systems) can be used to help select a sanitary landfill site.
GIS is a computer-based system that uses spatial data to analyze and solve problems.
GIS can be used to map the location of solid waste disposal sites, identify potential
landfill sites, and assess the environmental impacts of different site locations. The
parameters involved in landfill site selection include environmental, economic and
social criteria, some of which may be in conflict making landfill site selection a

1
tedious and complex process. The population of the area and the wastes generated
from each household and areas should be investigated for the plan and design of the
landfill

1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Current SLF of PMC which was operating since 2005 is located in Ward-18
Bachhebuduwa of PMC.This site lies in the edge of Seti river 1.5 km away from new
Pokhara International Airport which started its flight from Jan 1, 2023.[1], [2] Civil
Aviation Rule 2002, prohibits open storage and dumping of solid waste inside 3 km
radius from the airport. Landfills attract birds like eagle, vulture, crow,etc which can
increase the risk of bird aircraft strike hazard. This has been a problem in many
airports in the world including Tribhuwan International Airport.[3]Therefore,
Bachhebuduwa landfill site needs to be closed scientifically. The main challenge for
PMC is to close the existing landfill site in an environmentally friendly way and to
find and build a new landfill site as soon as possible.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the project is to design the sanitary landfill site for
the disposal of residual solid waste with following specific objectives:

1. To select landfill site using GIS based multicriteria evaluation technique.

2. To determine size of landfill and its design with suitable leachate treatment
facility.

1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY

This study aims to explore the selection of a suitable landfill site using GIS
(Geographic Information System) and to develop a conceptual design of a semi-
aerobic landfill. The scope of the study will be limited to the following:

1. Identification of Criteria for Landfill Site Selection: The study will identify and
analyze the criteria that are used in the selection of landfill sites. This will include
factors such as hydrology, topography, land use, and environmental regulations.
2. Use of Analytical Hierarchal Process (AHP) to prepare the suitability map in GIS.
This will involve data collection, analysis, and visualization of the spatial data.
3. GIS Mapping of Potential Landfill Sites: The study will utilize GIS to map
potential landfill sites based on suitability map.

2
4. Forecasting of Future Waste Generation and Determination of Landfill capacity.
5. Conceptual Design of Semi-Aerobic Landfill: The study will develop a conceptual
design of a semi-aerobic landfill based on the identified site. The design will
include the landfill cells, liner system, leachate collection and treatment system,
gas collection and utilization system.

1.4 LIMITATIONS

Despite all the definitions and descriptions mentioned above, there are still some
limitations, which we are unable to cover up to now. The limitations are hereby:

1. Landfill site facilities like access road, stormwater, weight bridge, final
cover design.
2. Structural design
3. Soil stability analysis and Geotechnical Study
4. IEE and EIA

3
2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Historical Waste management Practices

The earlier practice of solid waste management by the city dwellers in the Kathmandu
valley is not clearly documented. With a small population, low amount of industrial
activity inside the Kathmandu valley and with abandoned land available, the waste
generated was either dumped on the river banks on the outskirts of the urban core or
collected, decomposed and used as an organic manure in the agricultural field. In
1950, the three towns of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur were incorporated as
municipalities and the management of the solid waste was the responsibility of the
respective municipalities[2].These municipalities employed kuchikars for collection
of the solid waste and tractors were used to dispose of the waste along the Bagmati
and Bishnumati rivers. In 1981, the responsibility to manage the solid waste of
Kathmandu valley was handed over to the Solid Waste Management and Resource
Mobilization Center (SWMRMC), funded by German Technical Cooperation Agency
(GTZ). Part of the MSW was recycled and part of it was processed to make organic
fertilizer by establishing a processing plant at Teku, Kathmandu. In 1986 a sanitary
landfill was developed at Gokarna (near the Tribhuvan International Airport,
Kathmandu) where most of the solid waste was disposed. Selection and development
of a sanitary landfill site to dispose of solid waste was a major challenge for the
Nepali government for many years. In 2003, the Asian Development Bank bolstered
Pokhara Environmental Improvement Program to assemble a sterile landfill site for
the city as a major aspect of the Second Tourism Infrastructure Development Project.
[1]

4
2.2 Environmental acts and guidelines for waste management

GoN is responsible for the solid waste management but the waste disposal and
management is still not practiced efficiently. Local government has set waste
management in high priority but due to inadequate resource and technologies they are
not able to showcase a effective integrated solid waste management.The GoN has
formulated several policies and legislative frameworks for waste disposal and
management which are briefly discussed in the following sections.
Solid Waste Management National Policy, 2053 (1996)
The national policy on solid waste management provides broader framework for the
government including local government to manage the solid waste at local level. The
main objectives of the policy are:

• To make solid waste management simple and effective,

• To minimize environmental pollution caused by the solid wastes and adverse
effect and thereof to the public health,
• To mobilize the solid wastes as resources,
• To privatize the solid waste management, and
• To obtain public support by increasing public awareness in sanitation works.

The national policy on solid waste management is directed towards making the then
local bodies competent in wastes management and enhancement of their capacity to
provide more skilled human resources and effective sanitation services.
Clause 5.1 of the policy clearly spells out the involvement of the local level
institutions in solid waste management. The policy stipulates that there shall be a
separate unit concerning sanitation works in each municipal corporation, sub-
municipal corporations, municipalities, and town-oriented the then village
development committees where the solid wastes management has become a problem.
The local body shall operate its works in close co-ordination with the national level
institutions concerning solid waste management maintained by the then His Majesty's
Government (now named as Government of Nepal). The responsibilities of those
institutions include collection, preservation, mobilization, site management,
transportation and final disposal of solid wastes in collaboration with the private
sector, if necessary
Solid Waste Management Act, 2068 (2011)

5
The Solid Waste Management Act, 2068 is the governing legislative statute that
provides regulatory guidance for the solid waste management in the country. The Act
is explicit on various aspects of waste management with clearly outlined roles and
responsibilities on the solid waste management from central to local level. Chapter 1,
Clause 2 (aa) defines the "Local Body" as concerned municipality, sub-municipality,
city and the then Village Development Committee whose roles are critical in solid
waste management. Chapter 3 of the Act charts out the responsibilities of local bodies
in the solid waste management as follows.

• The local body shall be responsible for the management of solid waste by
construction and operation of infrastructure like transfer station, landfill site,
processing plant, compost plant, biogas-plant and also collection of waste,
final disposal and processing,
• The local body shall be responsible for the arrangement of the solid waste
collected in the course of cleaning, throwing or placing solid waste at the
collection centre, transfer station or processing site, or its use in other ways.

Local Government Operation Act, 2074 (2018)

The waste management activities at the local level are largely guided by the Local
Government Operation Act, 2074. The functions, roles and responsibilities of local
government have been clearly spelled out in Section 3 of the Act. Clause 1.1 of the
Chapter specifies the roles and responsibilities of the local governments. Subclause
“Jha” of the clause specifies fundamental health and sanitation with particular focus
on the followings.

• Awareness raising on sanitation and waste management,

• Collection, re-use, re-cycle and disposal of waste and fixation of tariff and its
regulation,
• Coordination, collaboration and partnership with private sector and non-
government agencies for waste management

Clause 12 (Sub-clause 11) of the Act outlines that the Ward Committee of the local
government about the collection and management of household level wastes,
sanitation of Chowks and Gallies, sewerage management, management of dead
animals, drainage of surface water and conservation of water sources. Likewise,

6
Clause 26 states about partnership and collaboration by the municipalities for the
disposal of wastes or development and operation of waste management system.
National Climate Change Policy, 2076 (2019)
The government of Nepal has issued the National Climate Change Policy, 2076 with
the objective of providing policy guidance to government bodies for reducing the
impact of climate change and developing climate resilient society. The goal of this
policy is to make contribution to socio-economic prosperity of the nation by building
climate resilient society. Section 8.7 of the policy contains health, drinking water and
sanitation under which strategies and working policies (C) specifies that emphasis
will be given to the proper management of harmful and hazardous waste and the use
of biodegradable waste for energy production by segregating the wastes generated by
households, hotels and hospitals at their sources.
Environmental Protection Act, 2076 (2019)
Environmental Protection Act, 2076 came into force recently by amending and
consolidating the prevailing laws on environmental protection. The Act envisages:

• To protect the fundamental right of each citizen to live in a clean and healthy
environment,
• To provide the victim with compensation by the polluter for any damage
resulting from environmental pollution or degradation,
• To maintain a proper balance between environment and development,
• To mitigate adverse environmental impacts on environment and biodiversity,
and
• To face the challenges posed by climate change.

Chapter-2 of the Act has provisioned for an Environmental Study, including Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE) report and Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) for a development project which shall be submitted and approved from the
relevant authorities such as the Investment Board and/or by the Ministry of Forests
and Environment of the GoN. Similarly, Chapter-3 refers about “Pollution Control”
whereby the Government publishes notification in the Nepal Gazette, may determine
necessary standards for the mitigation of the impacts of vehicular pollution, and
pollution from equipment, industrial enterprises, hotels, restaurants or other places or
from the disposal or emission of hazardous substances. According to sub-section-2,
no person shall create pollution in such a manner as to cause significant adverse

7
impacts on the public life, public health and environment or commit any act contrary
to the standards determined by the Government of Nepal pursuant to sub-section-1.
Solid Waste (Management and Resource Mobilization) Act, 1987
It was the first law related to solid waste management in order to ensure the health
convince of the common people by controlling the adverse impacts on pollution from
solid waste. The salient features of these laws are:
• Under the provision Act Solid Waste Management and Resource
Mobilization Center (SWMRMC)was established as the first authorized
body to manage the solid wastes of major cities.
• This act identified solid wastes as resources, and raise public awareness
and public participation
• The reuse, recycling, and reducing the wastes at the local level are
prioritized.
• The provision of revenue-generating activities, such as the sale of
fertilizer, biogas, briquette from the produced solid waste as well the
collection of disposal fees, sweeping charges.
• Despite being the first solid waste law in Nepal, it failed to provide
effective legislation.

8
2.3 Waste management Hierarchy

Waste management hierarchy is a framework that outlines the preferred approach for
managing waste. The hierarchy consists of five levels, starting with the most preferred
option and ending with the least preferred option. The levels are as follows:
Source Reduction/Prevention: The first and most desirable level of the waste
management hierarchy is source reduction or prevention. This involves strategies and
practices aimed at minimizing or eliminating waste generation at the source. It
focuses on reducing the overall quantity of waste produced by using less material,
adopting efficient manufacturing processes, and promoting sustainable consumption
patterns. Source reduction includes activities such as product design for recycling,
packaging minimization, and the use of renewable materials.
Reuse: The second level of the waste management hierarchy is reuse. Reusing items
or materials involves extending their lifespan by utilizing them for the same or
different purposes. This can be achieved through repair, refurbishment, or
repurposing. By encouraging reuse, we can reduce the demand for new products,
conserve resources, and minimize waste generation. Examples of reuse include
donating used items, using refillable containers, and employing reusable shopping
bags.
Recycling/Recovery: Recycling is a crucial step in waste management and forms the
third level of the hierarchy. Recycling involves collecting, sorting, and processing
waste materials to manufacture new products. It helps conserve natural resources,
reduce energy consumption, and decrease pollution associated with the extraction and
production of raw materials. Common recyclable materials include paper, plastic,
glass, metal, and certain types of electronics. Effective recycling programs often
require proper infrastructure, education, and public participation.
Energy Recovery: The fourth level of the waste management hierarchy is energy
recovery, which involves harnessing the energy content of non-recyclable waste.
Technologies such as waste-to-energy facilities or incineration plants can convert
solid waste into heat or electricity. While energy recovery can help reduce
dependence on fossil fuels and alleviate pressure on landfills, it should be considered
after source reduction, reuse, and recycling, as it still involves the disposal of waste.
Disposal: The final and least preferred level of the waste management hierarchy is
disposal. Disposal refers to the safe and responsible disposal of waste that cannot be

9
prevented, reused, recycled, or used for energy recovery. Common disposal methods
include landfilling, which involves burying waste in designated areas, and
incineration without energy recovery. Proper disposal practices aim to minimize
environmental contamination and human health risks by complying with regulations
and employing appropriate waste treatment technique

Reuse and Reduction

Recycling and Composting

Waste to Energy

Incineration(as
energy recovery)

Lan
dfill

Figure 1 Waste management Hirearcy

10
2.4 Landfill Selection using GIS

Landfill site selection is a complex and challenging process that requires the
consideration of a variety of factors, including environmental, social, and economic
impacts. Geographic information systems (GIS) can be a valuable tool in landfill site
selection, as they allow for the integration and analysis of large amounts of spatial
data.
A number of studies have investigated the use of GIS in landfill site selection. One
study, conducted by [4], used GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to
select a landfill site in Harar City, Ethiopia. The study identified a number of factors
that were important in landfill site selection, including distance from residential areas,
slope, and land use. The study concluded that GIS can be a valuable tool in landfill
site selection, as it allows for the integration of a variety of factors and the
visualization of results.
Another study, conducted by [5], used GIS to select a landfill site in Srinagar City,
India. The study identified a number of factors that were important in landfill site
selection, including slope, elevation, and distance from water bodies. The study
concluded that GIS can be a valuable tool in landfill site selection, as it allows for the
integration of a variety of factors and the visualization of results.
The use of GIS in landfill site selection has a number of advantages. First, GIS allows
for the integration of a variety of factors that are important in landfill site selection,
such as environmental, social, and economic impacts. Second, GIS allows for the
visualization of results, which can help to make the landfill site selection process
more transparent. Third, GIS can be used to simulate the impacts of different landfill
site options, which can help to identify the best option for a particular location.
However, there are also some challenges associated with the use of GIS in landfill site
selection. First, the data that is required for GIS analysis can be difficult to obtain.
Second, the analysis can be complex and time-consuming. Third, the results of GIS
analysis can be subjective, depending on the factors that are included in the analysis.
Despite the challenges, GIS can be a valuable tool in landfill site selection. By
integrating a variety of factors and visualizing results, GIS can help to make the
landfill site selection process more efficient and transparent.

11
2.5 AHP

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was used to evaluate each criterion in landfill
site selection. AHP is a powerful tool for considering complex problems that involve
several interrelated objectives. The weights of specific criteria are established by
ranking their importance and suitability. The AHP method is composed of three main
steps:
Decomposition: The first step is to decompose the decision-making problem into a
hierarchical structure. A hierarchical structure consists of several levels, with the
overall goal at the top, criteria at the next level, and sub-criteria at the lowest level. In
the case of landfill site selection, the overall goal is to select the best site for a landfill.
The criteria include environmental factors, economic factors, and constraints. The
sub-criteria of environmental factors include geology, surface water, and land use.
Pairwise Comparison Matrix: The next step is to make pairwise comparisons of the
criteria and sub-criteria. This is done by asking the decision-maker to compare each
pair of criteria or sub-criteria in terms of their importance. The decision-maker is
asked to assign a number between 1 and 9 to represent the relative importance of each
pair of criteria or sub-criteria.
Calculation of weightage: The final step is to calculate the weights of the criteria and
sub-criteria. This is done by using a mathematical procedure called eigenvector
analysis. The weights of the criteria and sub-criteria are then used to evaluate the
alternatives.
The consistency of the matrix of order n was then evaluated. If this consistency index
failed to reach a threshold level, then the answers to comparisons were re-examined.
The consistency index, CI, was calculated as:
λmax−1
CI =
n−1
where CI is the consistency index, λmax is the largest or principal eigenvalue of the
matrix, and n is the order of the matrix. This CI can be compared to that of a random
matrix, RI, such that the ratio, CI/ RI, is the consistency ratio, CR. As a general rule,
CR ≤0.1 should be maintained for a matrix to be consistent.
The AHP method has been used in a variety of applications, including landfill site
selection, facility location, solar energy site selection and product design. It is a

12
powerful tool for considering complex problems that involve several interrelated
objectives.

2.6 Landfilling and Semi-Aerobic Landfill

Landfills are one of the most common methods of waste disposal, particularly for
municipal solid waste. While landfilling can be an effective waste management
strategy, it also has significant environmental impacts, including air and water
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil degradation.
A. F. Abdullah et al. conducted a review of landfill leachate management,
highlighting the need for proper design, operation, and maintenance of landfill
systems to minimize the environmental impact of leachate. The authors discussed
various leachate treatment technologies and their effectiveness in removing
contaminants.
S. J. H. Park et al. examined the role of landfill gas in energy recovery and
greenhouse gas mitigation. The authors discussed the potential for landfill gas to be
used as a renewable energy source and highlighted the importance of properly
designed and operated landfill gas recovery systems.
H. H. Al-Kayiem and H. M. Jamil conducted a review of the environmental impacts
of landfilling, including air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and land
degradation. The authors emphasized the need for effective waste management
policies and practices to minimize these impacts.
Semi-aerobic landfill is considered to be a highly desirable landfill design known for
its environmental and economic benefits. It is also referred to as "passive aeration" by
the United Nations and has been recognized as a Clean Development Mechanism. The
concept of semi-aerobic landfill was first tested in 1975 at the Shin-Kamata Landfill
in Fukuoka, Japan, under the leadership of Prof. Masataka Hanashima from Fukuoka
University.[6]
The implementation of semi-aerobic landfills is more common in the eastern part of
Asia. This could be attributed to the fact that this landfill design achieves waste
stabilization and leachate treatment through passive aeration, without relying on
mechanical equipment. In a semi-aerobic landfill system, oxygen enters the waste
mass via leachate collection pipes through passive ventilation, facilitating aerobic
microbial decomposition. This process not only accelerates waste stabilization but
also improves the quality of leachate water.Semi-aerobic landfill is considered a

13
simple and cost-effective technology with positive environmental implications.[6]The
advantages of semi-aerobic landfill are;

1. It purifies leachate significantly by increasing waste decomposition rate.

2. It contributes towards global warming mitigation by reducing methane gas
emission substantially.
3. The risk of gas explosion and fire hazard is reduced by releasing the gas from
ventilation pipes.
4. It converts open dumps into sanitary landfills in an easier way.
5. Earlier landfill rehabilitation is expected through enhanced stabilization.
6. It is cost-effective due to the high degree of freedom in construction material
selection and utilization of less intensive leachate treatment system

14
3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Location

The location of this project is Pokhara Metropolitan City (PMC). After the state
restructuring in 2015, Pokhara sub-metropolitan city and Lekhnath sub metropolitan
city along with other 14 small VDCs were merged to form Pokhara metropolitan city
(PMC). With total area of 464.24 square kilometer, PMC is the largest city of Nepal
in terms of administrative boundary.[7] It is the regional center of the western part of
Nepal, the headquarters of Kaski district as well as the capital of Gandaki province.
PMC is a bowl-shaped valley centrally divided by deep lying seti river and
surrounded by popular hills and lies in the lap of Annapurna Himalayan. The
population of PMC is 513,504.[8]

Figure 2Pokhara Resource Map[7]

15
3.2 Selection Criteria;

Physical and social factors interaction play a vital role for deciding the suitability of
any landfill site. So, set of parameters was developed following the guidelines of
SWMRMC and several prior literatures which covers geographical, environmental
and social constraints that defines the suitable site of landfill. The first group consists
of major land surface characteristics like slope, rivers, lakes and geomorphological set
up. The second factors include important sub‐ surface properties namely lithological
set up, and soil character, whereas the third factors represent social condition of the
study area including land use and landcover (LULC), urban settlement, position of
road, airport and other important places.

3.3 Data Collection and Processing

For landfill site selection, it is evident that a large number of factors must be
incorporated in the decision-making process which makes it quite difficult and
tedious. Geographic Information System (GIS) based Multi Criteria Technique proves
to be efficient in these conditions owning to its ability to manage large volumes of
spatial data from various sources[5]. For GIS based analysis Esri ArcGIS Pro 3.0
software is used in this study. Tools like buffer, clip, multiple ring buffer, union,
merge, reclassify, weighted overlay and erase are used while performing basic tasks in
the software. Primary data which includes raw data obtained from different agencies
like USGS Earth Explorer, Department of Survey, Alaskan Satellite Facility and Open
Street Map. Secondary data includes the processed data obtained from primary data
after performing cartographic operations. A detailed description of all the collected
data is shown in Table .

S Data type Publisher and Source

N

1 Administrative Boundary Department of Survey, Nepal

2 Settlement Open Street Map

3 Rivers Department of Survey, Nepal

4 Landuse Esri Land Cover

16
 5 DEM United States Geological Survey (USGS)

6 Soil type ICIMOD

7 Lakes, Airports Open Street Map

Table 1 GIS data type and source

3.4 Landfill Design

For the design of a sanitary landfill the baseline data about waste quantity,
composition ,material flow and current practices are necessary. After the baseline data
collection they are to be studied gently to understand waste management system in the
study area. Various guidelines and manuals related to landfill design wa

17
4 SITE SELECTION USING GIS AND AHP

4.1 Preparing layer map of Criteria

After selecting the important criteria related to the present study, the required
maps were obtained in order to prepare the digital maps of criteria within ArcGIS.
One sources for these maps was National GeoPortal website where various datasets
were provided for free. Land use and Settlement map was extracted from open street
map using QGIS. Slope maps was prepared from the DEM data using geoprocessing
tools in ArcGIS. Soil map was taken from ICIMOD. To prepare raster map which is
used in our weighted overlay analysis various tools like Buffer, multiple ring buffer,
polygon to raster, Slope, Polyline to raster, clipping, reclassify, etc were used. In this
study, all vector maps were converted to raster maps to perform the analysis process
in GIS for landfill selection. All information was projected onto the world geodetic
system (WGS 1984) using a projected coordinate system (UTM).

4.2 Restriction of location and buffer zones

To identify the most suitable site for landfill, a process of large-scale

evaluation is required. Any chosen site should satisfy the governmental regulations'
requirements as well reducing environmental, economic and social effects and costs.
Restricted sites mean areas that do not allow for a landfill site to be situated
within them due to the potential risk on the environment and human health or because
of the excessive cost.Buffer zones, or spatial constraints, are utilized around important
sites or specific geographic features in each criterion in the GIS environment using
the spatial analysis tool, buffer. The buffer zones were created at a distance from each
feature of the selected criteria based on selection guideline prescribed by SWMRMC.

4.3 Sub criteria

In this study, based on supervisor, reviews of literature in this field, and

various required and available data about the study area, each criterion was classified
into classes (sub criteria), and each class was given a suitability grading value.
Previous studies were studied to make our grading and classification more reliable
and rational. With the help of reclassify tools these were divided into different classes.

18
Slope

Slope is a topographical factor which is related to stability of landfill along

with efficient leachate collection. An area with a very steep slope will increase
drainage of leachate from the landfill site to surrounding areas, and will grow the risk
of leachate flowing from high slopes to flat and low areas or bodies of water. This
may lead to leachate pollution and contaminants moving long distances from their
sources. Flat lands are also not preferred as minimum of 2% gradient is necessary for
flow of leachate-to-leachate collection system through leachate collection pipes. Area
with a higher slope than 20% are prone to slope failure, high excavation cost and
landslides.[9]PMC is a bowl-shaped valley so the outer part of PMC has high steep
hills with slope of more than 20 degrees. The favorable area would be place with
surrounding hills and medium degree of slope.

Settlement

The settlement layer is prepared with the help of OpenStreetMap plugin in

QGIS whose shapefile was later imported into ArcGIS. The layer consists of 133,482
polygons. The total household number of PMC is 143,137 according to preliminary
census data of 2021. The distance from urban centers should be at least 5 km and
from isolated houses 500 m to locate a landfill site. The buffer distances for towns and
villages within a population greater than 500 people are determined as 1000 m, for all
other identified centers of population as 500 m and for private residences, businesses,
social and community buildings as 250 m by suggests that no new landfill site should
be located closer than 0.4 km from a collection of ten or more houses. On the other
hand, the landfill site should be located within 10 km of an urban area due to the
economic considerations. By considering all the suggested safe distances in the
literature and analyzing our study area 100m of restricted buffer area is created. The
buffer distance is kept small in consideration of small area of PMC. In case of area
with low population density near suitable site existing houses can be relocated to new
location with the help of local government aid.

Lakes

PMC is famous for city of lakes, Lakes should be given special care while
selecting landfill sitting.There are numerous small lakes inside PMC. The major 10
big lakes were selected in our analysis.Lake layer includes Phewa, Begnas, Rupa,

19
Khaste, Dipang, Maidi, Gude, Niureni, Kashyap and Kamal Pokhari. A multiple ring
buffer of 200m, 500m, 700m was created. Considering the possible leakage of
leachate to lakes restriction upto 500 m is used as input.

Rivers

The river criteria was adopted to protect water of various rivers that is passing
through the study area from contamination by leachate. In this study buffer zone of
100m is adopted due to presence of many hydrography lines and difficulty in
selection of candidate area using high buffer distance. 100m of buffer distance from
free flowing water surface is recommend.[10] This selection may take consideration if
discharge of river is small and it is possible for river training works.

Airports

Location of the airport is one of the most important factors in landfill siting
process. Landfill site should be located away from the airport to avoid bird menace.
Landfills are the sites of attraction for birds especially eagles searching for rodents
and flesh. aircraft which can lead to aircraft damage and even to casualties. Bird strike
has turn out to be a major hazard to air safety globally. The collision between aircrafts
and birds has resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives and is responsible for annual
losses of about US $1.2 billion to the international aviation industry. Therefore,
landfills that are located near the airport poses a risk of collision between birds
andStudy area consists of two airports Pokhara regional International Airport and
Pokhara domestic airport. Current landfill site is in proximity of 3km radius from the
newly constructed airport.[11], [12] So landfill site should be relocated to a newer
place. In this study 3km , 5 km and 10 km multiple ring buffer was created. Less than
3 km area was defined as restricted area.

Roads

Road data are obtained using OpenStreetMap Plugin in QGIS. Definition

Query is used to select major road networks in PMC. Then multiple line buffer was
applied and finally converted to raster image.
The landfill site should not be too far from the existing road network in order
to avoid the expensive cost of constructing new roads and to further reduce the cost of
transportation. A minimum distance away from the roads is also necessary to avoid
visual impact with garbage and other nuisance like foul smell. Therefore, a buffer of

20
300 m is provided along centre line of roads on both sides. On the other hand, the
landfill site should not be placed too far away from existing road networks to avoid
the expensive cost of constructing connecting roads. The buffer zones of 200 m, 500m
and 1000 m were created in our study.

Land use

Since water bodies is already covered in lake and hydrography line layers and
built up area was covered in settlement layer. So to prevent duplication of same raster
in analysis water bodies,builtup area and airports were excluded from the land use
map. Total of 4 Forest, farmland, residental area( commercial housing and
apartments) and farmyard are used in our landuse raster.Forest area is restricted for
the environmental purpose.

Soil type

To prepare the soil type vector map, the published map by ICIMOD was
imported, clipped and reclassified to different soil type. There are eleven types of soil
in PMC as per the data. Subsequently, the vector map of soil types was converted to a
raster map. Soil type were defined using the soil name code. The properties of soils
like hydraulic conductivity bearing capacity were studied which is suitable for landfill
sites and grading is done.

21
4.4 Determining of Relative Weights of criteria Using AHP

Comparing the importance between different constraints based on literature

review, discussion with environmental engineers, environmental hazard potential,
economic advantages and social benefits the scores are calculated.

4.5 Rating Scale

The comparison between two elements using AHP can be done in different
ways .However, the relative importance scale between two alternatives as
suggested by Saaty is the most widely used. attributing values that vary from 1
to 9, the scale determines the relative importance of an alternative when
compared with another alternative. It is common to always use odd numbers
from the table above to make sure there is a reasonable distinction among the
measurement points. The use of even numbers should only be adopted if there
is a need for negotiation between the evaluators. When a natural consensus
cannot be reached, it raises the need to determine a middle point as the
negotiated solution

22
 Rating Definition

9 Row extremely more important

8 Row very strongly to extremely more important

7 Row very strongly more important

6 Row strongly to very strongly more important

5 Row strongly more important

4 Row moderately to strongly more important

3 Row moderately more important

2 Row equally important to moderately more important

1 Row and column equally important

1/2 Column equally important to moderately more important

1/3 Column moderately more important

1/4 Column moderately to strongly more important

1/5 Column strongly more important

1/6 Column strongly to very strongly more important

1/7 Column very strongly more important

1/8 Column very strongly to extremely more important

1/9 Column extremely more important

Table 2 Rating Score and definition

23
 SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Item Lake Rivers Land use Settlement Road Soil Airport Slope
1 Lake 1.000 3.000 4.000 4.000 7.000 8.000 0.167 0.500
2 Rivers 0.333 1.000 2.000 3.000 3.000 5.000 0.200 0.500
3 Land use 0.250 0.500 1.000 0.250 6.000 7.000 0.333 0.500
4 Settlement 0.250 0.333 4.000 1.000 5.000 9.000 0.333 2.000
5 Road 0.143 0.333 0.167 0.200 1.000 3.000 0.167 0.250
6 Soil 0.333 0.200 0.143 0.111 0.333 1.000 0.111 0.143
7 Airport 0.167 5.000 3.000 3.000 6.000 9.000 1.000 5.000
8 Slope 0.200 2.000 2.000 0.500 4.000 7.000 0.200 1.000
Sum 2.676 12.367 16.310 12.061 32.333 49.000 2.511 9.893

Table 3 Pairwise Comparision Matrix

Pairwise Comparison Mat

24
 Standardized Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Rivers Settlemen
tem Lake Landuse Road Soil Airport Slope Weigh
t
Lake 0.374 0.243 0.245 0.332 0.216 0.163 0.066 0.051 0.211
Rivers 0.125 0.081 0.123 0.249 0.093 0.102 0.080 0.051 0.113
Landuse 0.093 0.040 0.061 0.021 0.186 0.143 0.133 0.051 0.091
Settlement 0.093 0.027 0.245 0.083 0.155 0.184 0.133 0.202 0.140
Road 0.053 0.027 0.010 0.017 0.031 0.061 0.066 0.025 0.036
Soil 0.125 0.016 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.020 0.044 0.014 0.031
Table 4 Standardized Matrix
Airport 0.062 0.404 0.184 0.249 0.186 0.184 0.398 0.505 0.272
Slope 0.075 0.162 0.123 0.041 0.124 0.143 0.080 0.101 0.106

25
26
Item Lake Rivers Landuse Settlement Road Soil Airport Slope SUM SUM/Wt
Lake 0.21 0.34 0.36 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.05 2.07 9.82
Rivers 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.42 0.11 0.16 0.05 0.05 1.16 10.27
Landuse 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.05 0.81 8.95
Settlement 0.05 0.04 0.36 0.14 0.18 0.28 0.09 0.00 1.15 8.17
Road 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.29 7.85
Soil 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.12 3.92
Airport 0.04 0.56 0.27 0.42 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.53 1.29 4.76
Slope 0.04 0.23 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.05 0.11 0.52 4.90
Consistency Index(CI) and Consistency Ratio (CR)

Table 5 Consistency index

32
Saaty’s CIr values for matrices are given by the following table

Size of Random
Matrix Consistency (CR)
1 0
2 0
3 0.58
4 0.90
5 1.12
6 1.24
7 1.32
8 1.41
9 1.45
10 1.49
Table 6 Saatys CR values

Result

No of matrix 8.00
lambda max 7.331
CI 0.096
CR 0.07
constant 1.41
Since the consistency ratio is 0.07 which is less than 0.1, AHP carried out is
reasonably consistent.

4.6 Preparation of Final Map

In order to find the suitability index value of the potential areas, a total of eight
raster map layers was entered in the GIS environment. Then, the spatial analysis tool
“Weighted Overlay Analysis” is applied, the weightage calculated from AHP for each
criteria is inputted and grading is done in their classes. The procedures for estimating
the suitability index were done through the summation of the products of multiplying
the grading values of the sub-criteria for each criterion by the corresponding relative
weight of each criterion. Analysis is runed to prepare the final raster map of
Suitability analysis. Then the raster’s are classified into various index name and
symbology based on score obtained.

33
 Scouting for the best suitable, highly suitable, moderately suitable and suitable
area is done using the imagery base map in final suitability map. Numerous
bookmarks of potential landfill siting were taken for further study of area. 13
candidate sites were studied. From the estimation of total waste generation during the
design life around 4-6 Hectares of land was required. After evaluating the social,
economical and environmental factors of candidate sites 4 out of 13 were taken out
for further comparison. Simlekuna (Armala) scored the highest point in the
comparision and thus selected for the best site.
Weighted matrix method is used for comparison of 4 candidate landfill sites.
The relative weightage obtained from focused group discussion and key informants’
interview during site selection of landfill site of Kathmandu valley is used in the
analysis. The most points was obtained from Simlekuna site so it was considered as
the design site during the next part of the project.

34
 Subcriteri Criteri
a a
SN Criteria Sub criteria Weigh
Rating t
(AHP)
Restricte
less than 3km
d
3-5 km 2
1 Airport 0.272
5-10 km 4
Greater than 10
5
km
2 River upto 100m 1 0.113
Restricte
within 200m
d
200-500 1
3 Lakes 0.211
500-700 3
Greater than
5
700m
Restricte
Water
d
Trees 1
Flooded
2
4 Landuse Vegetation 0.09
Crops 4
Built up area 1
Bareland 5
Farmland 5
upto200m 1
5 Road 200-500 2 0.036
500-1000 5
Settleme Restricte
6 upto 100m 0.14
nt d
less than 3o 5
3o to 5o 5
7 Slope 5o to 10o 4 0.106
10o to 15o 2
greater than 15o 1
8 Soil Type Fluvial non 0.031
5
calcareous
Gneiss,migmatite 3
Quartzite 3

35
 slate,phyllite 4

Table 7 Criteria and subcriteria ratings used in GIS

36
S.N. Parameters Relative
Weightage

1 Land scape / geology 17%

Surrounding Slopes 4
Basement of Sanitary Landfill 3
Permeability of Subsoil 5
Availability of Liner Materials 2
Availability of Cover Soils 3

2. Hydrology 20%
Watershed 2
Management of Surface water runoff 3
Groundwater and level movement 4
Distance from sources such as springs wells and stream 4
Use of water downstream 3
Absorptive capacity of water body receiving leachate 1
Danger of floods 3

3. Sanitary landfill potential & access 12%

Capacity 3
Potential of extension 2
Distance from source of waste 5
Access to sanitary landfill site 2

4. Biotic environmental 10%

Vegetation/ Forest 3
Wildlife 2
Aquatic life 5
Rare and endangered species 2

5. Socio-economic and cultural environment 23%

Distance of the settlement or institution from the site 4
Land use at the site 2

37
 Land ownership at the site 3
Cultural/religious site 4
Impact on local economy 3
Traffic 1
Aesthetic 1
Attitude of local people 5

6. Sanitary land fill management and general safety 18%

Leachate treatment 5
Landfill gas management 2
Birds hazard to aircraft 3
Control of spreading of odour and waste 3
Buffer zone 5

Table 8 Paramaters and their relative weightage used in site comparision of landfill for Kathmandu valley[13]

38
 Relative Dihi Bharatpokhari Thulachaur Simlekuna
Parameters
weightage c c*a c a c c*a c c*a
Landscape/geology 17% 6 102 4 68 7 119 8 136
Hydrology 20% 8 160 6 120 8 160 7 140
Sanitary landfill potential and access 12% 6 72 7 84 6 72 7 84
Biotic environments 10% 8 80 6 60 6 60 6 60
Socio-economic and cultural environment 23% 6 138 5 115 5 115 9 207
Sanitary landfill management and general
18% 4 72 5 90 6 108 8 144
safety
Total 100%   624   537   634   771
Least Msost
Remarks              
point suitable
C=impact of project at particular site on environmental component (0-10)
a= relative weightage of environmental component

Table 9 Impact matrix comparision of four candidate sites

37
39
4.7 Selected Site Description

The results of a comprehensive geographical information systems (GIS)

analysis have been utilized to compare several potential landfill sites for PMC.
Following this evaluation, it was determined that the best site for a landfill was
located in Simlekuna Armala, as it excelled in numerous aspects. The site is located in
the northern region near the Lamachaur area, and it is situated close to the confluence
of Kali Khola. The altitude at the landfill site ranges from 1000-1050 meters above
sea level, and it is accessible through a gravel road located along the edge of
Kalikhola. This road connects the site to Batulechaur, located 3 km to the northeast,
and it is approximately 10-15 km away from the main city center of Pokhara. The
proposed landfill site spans an area of 2.5 hectares. The site protection and buffer
zone, including the forest on the northern side of the access road, covers 7 hectares.
This area will include facilities for waste management, such as an administrative
complex, internal service road, and leachate treatment facilities. Due to the urgent
need for a landfill, it has been decided to develop the site immediately for a short-term
period of 10 years as a means to address the solid waste management needs of the
cities in the Pokhara Valley until a long-term sustainable solution which comprises
waste recovery and waste reduction is planned and executed.
The Simkuna Hill spans an area of approximately 30 hectares. The slope of
the surrounding valley to the northeast of the site is noticeably hillier in comparison to
the slope in the northwest. The land composition consists of a combination of
woodland and arable land. The site is situated at a considerable distance from the
metropolitan area of Pokhara. However, the Annapurna Secondary School is located
to the north of the site at a distance of 700 meters, and the settlement of Bhate Gaun,
consisting of 12 households, is located to the south of the site approximately 1
kilometer away.The land in the area is comprised of both cultivated fields and
woodland. Terrace farming is employed to cultivate rice during the monsoon season.
There are no significant biological resources, such as wildlife or aquatic life, present
within the site or its vicinity.
The Bhate village has a total population of approximately 50 individuals
residing in 12 households. The villagers belong to the mixed ethnic group and
primarily engage in agricultural and farming pursuits. The village is accessible via a
motorable road. Approximately 2.5 hectares of privately cultivated land will need to

40
be acquired for the construction of the landfill cell area and additional land will be
required for the creation of a buffer zone. There is a lack of physical infrastructure
within the proposed landfill site area. However, the vicinity of the site is home to
various small-scale operations including goat farms, bee farms, agro farms, and
plantations of medicinal herbs.No cultural sites have been observed in the vicinity of
the site. The residents of Bhate village regularly gather grass for daily use and collect
timber and twigs as needed.
A detailed topographical survey was carried out in and around the site
covering a total area of 2.5 ha. Main outputs of the survey were the preparation of:

1. A topographic-map of the landfill site and immediate surroundings in scale

1:1250, with 10m major contour intervals and 2m minor contour intervals.
2. Digital elevation of the proposed site.

Location of site:
Easting 794300.00 m E
Northing 3130390.00 m N
Description of surrounding:
800 m North of Bhate gaon (20 household)
2 Farmhouse inside proximity of site
Forest in north,east and south direction
Small rivulet at 200 m south
Access to Batelechaur-Danda Gaon Road

Figure 3 Aerial view of proposed (selected) landfill site

41
42
5 DESIGN OF SANITARY LANDFILL AND LEACHATE
TREATMENT SYSTEM

5.1 Estimation of Future Solid Waste Generation

Quantification, characterization and future population forecast is used for the

estimation of future solid waste generation. Rates of solid waste production are
subject to certain variables, such as population density, levels and types of economic
activity, degree of urbanization, household expenditure and the income level of the
population.

Quantification and characterization of Municipal Solid waste

The survey carried out by Solid Waste Management Technical Support Center
(SWMTSC) in 2012 found out per capita waste generation to be 280 gm/day. In 2019,
the survey conducted during City-level assessment for PMC estimates average per
capita generation of 354 gm/day which is 60% increase over the previous survey.[14]
The average waste generation of newly formed 60 municipalities was estimated to be
180 gm/day/capita.[15]There are questions raised regarding the sample size,
methodology and sampling period that influenced the reliability and consistency of
the quantification result.
The recent characterization result at generation point shows the maximum
component is organic waste with more than 65% followed by plastic waste of 19%.
[14]

43
 Generation point waste composition
2% 2% 2%

4%
6%

19%

65%

Organic Plastics Paper Glass Metal Textile others

Figure 4 Pie chart showing waste composition of generation point[14]

44
Future population forecast

Incremental Increase Method:

It gives average results which is more accurate from geometric and arithmetic
increase method. It is suitable for an average size town under normal condition.
Incremental increase in population from decade to decade is calculated which may be
either positive or negative.
The future population Pn after n decades is given by the expression given
below.
n( n + 1)
Pn = P0 + nC + i
2
Where, Pn = future population at the end of n decades
P0= present population
C = average increase in population per decade
i = average incremental increase
Pokhara is the second largest city of Nepal with high degree of urbanization,
Incremental Increase method is used

Years Population Rate of increase

1952/54 3755 -
1961 5413 3.725%
1971 20611 14.300%
1981 46642 8.510%
1991 95286 7.405%
2001 156312 5.074%
2011 414141 10.234%
2021 513504 2.174%
Table 10 Population data of PMC [8], [16]

Incrementa Rate of
Years Population Increase
l Increase increase%
1952/54 3755
1961 5413 1658 0.44

45
 1971 20611 15198 13540 2.81
1981 46642 26031 10833 1.26
1991 95286 48644 22613 1.04
2001 156312 61026 12382 0.64
2011 414141 257829 196803 1.65
2021 513504 99363 -158466 0.24

509749 97705 0.06

Table 11 Incremental Increase Method

Forecasted
Year
Population
2022 527590
2023 536728
2024 545866
2025 555003
2026 564141
2027 573279
2028 582417
2029 591555
2030 600693
2031 609831
2032 618968
2033 628106
2034 637244
Table 12 Forecasted Population

46
 Population Forecasting
640000

620000

600000

580000

560000

540000

520000

500000
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034

Figure 5 Forecasted population

47
Study of quantity and composition of waste diverted to landfill

Landfilling fraction of waste generated in Pokhara is 18% and Kathmandu is 8%.

[17]Baseline survey shows the collection efficiency of metropolitan city in Nepal is
60%. The study conducted by World Bank results found nearly 50 trips/day
landfilling of waste with maximum capacity of 2 Ton vehicle which is about 54%
collection efficiency.[3], [14] In the same study the downstream sample has following
data;

Component Composition

Organic 44%

Plastic 19%

Paper 16%

Glass 8%

Others 13%

Table 13 Downstream sample composition[14]

The worldwide practice of solid waste and landfilling practice indicates the
decreasing trend of landfilling fraction of waste from year 2010-2020. The concept of
zero landfill cities has emerged in recent years which aims to decrease landfill waste
to below 1% by using waste to energy and other material recovery techniques. The
EU has directive of reducing landfilling waste to 10% or less of the total amount of
municipal waste generated by 2035.[18] The development of technology on improved
resource recovery and recycling has benefited in reduction of landfill waste. Recent
study by DRP, found 52% of recyclable and reusable waste are recovered in
Kathmandu valley.[19] Gandaki Urja Pvt. Ltd. in lekhnath has biogas plant that
convert 45 TPD of organic waste into high quality compressed natural gas and
organic fertilizer. PMC can raise awareness and implement segregation of waste to
increase resource recovery and increase landfill life. Green road waste management,
Pokhara is currently working on recycling plastic to use it as a green road. For the
circular economy and decrease the landfill development cost the resource from waste
should be recovered to maximum limit. The resource recovery rate is up to 99% in

48
European countries. In Indore, India the resource recovery techniques.In Indore, India
the resource recovery of 95% is obtained. Analyzing the downstream sample and
recommending the possible resource recovery as shown in table the waste going to
landfill is estimated and targeted to keep below 15%. PMC should prioritize resource
recovery and discourage a high percentage of waste landfilling.

Calculation of density of solid waste

Estimation of future waste composition going to Landfill

others Organic
19% 17%

Glass
12%

Plastics
28%

Paper
24%

Organic Plastics Paper Glass others

Figure 6Estimated future waste composition

Composition
Component Density (kg/m3) Remarks
on landfill (%)

Organic 145 17%  

Plastics 800 28%  
Paper 400 24%  
Glass 1800 12%  
Others 930 19% Metal,textile,etc
Table 14 Density of waste received by landfill

So, Total density of solid waste can be calculated as :

= (0.17*145+0.28*800+0.24*400+0.12*1800+0.19*930)

49
= 737.15 kg/m3 ~ 750 kg/m3

50
 Waste
Waste Reached
diverted
Component of Downstream (Collection
to Remarks
Waste Sample efficiency=60%
landfill
) MT/day
MT/day
90% reduction Gandaki
Urja 45TPD capacity
Organic 44% 48.18 4.818 ,composting bins
distribution at subsidized
rate
60% reduction Green
Non- Road Pvt Ltd.,
56.00% 61.32 24.528
biodegradable MRF facility
establishment[19]
Approx. 15% of waste
diverted to landfill
Total 100% 109.5 29.346
Table 15 Material flow planning

51
Future waste generation and landfilling waste for design period

The survey revealed the average life span of the landfill sites to be 16.3 years
with the lower value (6.5 years) for the metropolitan cities which has been attributed
to the lower land area and capacity against relatively large volume of waste
generation.[3] Emerging landfilling technologies, material resource recovery
techniques, consciousness on reduction and reuse of food and plastic waste and zero
landfill concept suggest that the design period for landfill should be kept minimum
and economical. Thus, the design period is taken as 10 years.
Base period 3 years (2022-2025)
Design period 10 years (2025-2035)

Waste going to
Projected
Year Waste quantities landfill (15%)
Population
(MT/year) MT/yr
2022 527590 68170
2023 536728 69351 Base period
2024 545866 70531
2025 555003 71712 10757
2026 564141 72893 10934
2027 573279 74073 11111
2028 582417 75254 11288
2029 591555 76435 11465
2030 600693 77615 11642
2031 609831 78796 11819
203216 Projection 618968
Table 79977
of waste quantities during design period 19994
2033 628106 81158 20289
2034 637244 82338 20585
Total waste 938470 234618 MT

52
5.2 Design of Landfill Size

For the design calculation of landfilling area design method and example provided by
Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization (CPHEEO). This
is an easier and simpler calculation method which helps to estimate the preliminary
area required for the landfilling of waste during during early design phase.

1) Calculation of total volume of waste going to the landfill :

Total volume of waste going in landfill in 10 years ( on assumption of density of

¿
waste 750kg/m3) Vw = Total waste going¿ the landfill Weight Density of waste

= 115537700/750
= 154050 m3

2) Calculation of total volume of daily cover:

Total volume of daily cover in 10 years (Vdc) (on the basis of 15 cm soil cover on top
and sides for lift height of 1.5 to 2 m) will be 0.1 Vw ,
Vdc = 0.1 Vw = 0.1* 154050 = 15405 m3

3) Calculation of total volume required for components of liner system and of

cover system:

Total volume required for components of liner system and of cover system (on the
assumption of 1.5m thick liner system (including leachate collection layer) and 1.0 m
thick cover system (including gas collection layer)
Vc = k* Vw (cu.m.)
(k = 0.25 for 10 m high landfill, 0.125 for 20 m high landfill and 0.08 for 30 m high
landfill.)
As the height of our landfill will be around 15 m so using interpolation value of k as
average of 10 & 20m height, we get the value of K as 0.1875 .
Vc = 0.1875 * 154050 = 28884.43 (cu.m.)
Volume likely to become available within 10 years due to settlement / biodegradation
of waste is :
Vs = m * Vw
(m = 0.10 for biodegradable waste; m will be less than 0.05 for incinerated/inert
waste) take m as an average of 0.1 and 0.05 which will be 0.075
Vs = 0.075 * 154050 = 11553.77 (cu.m.)

53
First estimate of landfill capacity (Ci )
Ci = Vw + Vdc + Vc - Vs (cu.m.)
= 154050+15405+2884.43-11543.77
Ci = 186786 m3
Fixing the total height of landfill and calculation of total area required for sanitary
landfill
Let us fixed the average height of SLF (H) = 15 meter,
Now,
Area required for SLF (AR) = Ci / H
= 186786/15
(AR) = 12252.4 m2
Due to difference in height at different section of landfill 10% more area was
considered in the design. ,
Area Available (AA) = Area of phase I + Area of Phase II
= 2* 6910
AA = 13820 m2

5.3 Design of Landfill Liner system

Bottom Liner system

A composite liner comprises of two barriers, made of different materials, placed in

intimate contact with each other to provide a beneficial combined effect of both the
barriers. Usually, a flexible geomembrane is placed over a clay or amended soil
barrier. A leachate collection system is placed over the composite barrier. Single
composite liner system are often the minimum specified liner system for non-
hazardous wastes such as MSW Specifications for single composite liner system as
recommended by EPA Ireland is used in the design.[20]

1. A low-permeability clay material compacted to achieve a specified minimum

permeability.
2. Base and sidewall mineral layer with hydraulic conductivity less than or equal
to 1x10-7m/s.
3. This is achieved by using a 600mm thick layer of clay, compacted in 150mm
layers.
4. Landfill base = 150mm

54
 5. Clay/amended soil with low permeability (1x10-7 ) =600mm
6. HDPE geo-membrane or synthetic flexible membrane =1.5mm think
7. Protective layer geotextile= 2mm thick
8. Leachate collection layer (blanket) =300mm

Final cover

A 1m final cover was considered to cover the waste and allow vegetation growth to
cover the landfill. The layer consisted of 500mm clay sealing soil of a low
permeability just above the wastes, a 300mm sand soil as drainage layer for water,
and a 1000mm vegetable soil layer at the surface to support vegetation growth.

55
5.4 Leachate Volume Calculation

An assessment of the leachate generation rate cannot be prepared in the absence of a

phasing plan. An understanding of the likely potential for leachate generation is
essential at the conceptual design stage. Water balances are used to assess likely
leachate generation volumes. Parameters used include waste volumes, input rates,
absorptive capacity, effective and total rainfall, infiltration, and other site parameters.
As the landfill design progresses, the calculations should be refined.[21]
The calculation should be of the form;
Lo = [ER(A) + LW + IRCA] - [a×W]
where:
Lo = leachate produced (m3)
ER = effective rainfall (use actual rainfall (R) for active cells) (m)
A = area of the cell (m2)
LW = liquid waste (also includes excess water from sludges) (m3)
IRCA = infiltration through restored and capped areas (m)
a = absorptive capacity of waste (m3/t)
W = weight of waste deposited (t/a)
Water balance calculation is used to design the leachate collection and treatment
systems.
Effective Rainfall
Effective Rainfall (ER) is defined as Total Rainfall (R) minus Actual
Evapotranspiration (AE) i.e. ER=R-AE. For water balances carried out on active
phases of landfills, it is assumed that all the Actual Rainfall will infiltrate into the
waste. In areas that have been temporarily capped/restored an infiltration rate of 25-
30% of the annual rainfall should be used. Infiltration in restored areas would be in
the range of 2- 10% of ER in a worst-case scenario for a geosynthetic clay liner cap.
Liquid waste
The designed landfill prohibits the acceptance of liquid waste, meaning any waste in
liquid form including wastewater but excluding sludge, to the landfill.
Waste input
The rate of waste input will be required in order to complete the water balance
calculation. Consideration should be given to the nature of the waste and the input
rate which will vary during the active life of the landfill.

56
Absorptive Capacity
The amount of water that can be absorbed without generating leachate depends on the
type of waste, its initial moisture content, and the density to which it is compacted.
Absorptive capacity can be determined on the basis of waste density from the graph
shown below.

Figure 7Absorption capacity waste density chart

Fig: Relationship between waste density and the absorptive capacity of waste
The water balance equation is;
Lo = [ER(A) + LW + IRCA] - [a×W]
The effective rainfall for Pokhara ranges between 3120-4000 mm per year
(Department of Hydrology and Metrology). Adopting 3477 mm/ year which was the
rainfall of last year.
ER= 3477 mm/year = 3.477 m/year
Area of landfill (A) = 13820 m2
Liquid waste (LW) = 0 (zero)
from the above graph for density 0.75t/m3, absorptive capacity (a) = 0.09
Considering 10% rainfall annual rainfall gives IRCA = 0.1 * 3477 = 0.347 m /year
Annual weight of waste deposited into landfill (W) = 115540 metric tonnes
substituting these values in the above equation,
Lo = [3.477×13820 + 0 + 0.3477×13820 - 0.09×115540] = 42458.754 m3
Lo = 42460 m3 of leachate produced from the whole landfill area covered with wastes
after the design life of the landfill.

57
5.5 Leachate collection system

The general function of leachate collection facility is to quickly collect and

channel the leachate generated from the rainfall on the land filled waste layers to the
leachate treatment facility. For the proposed site, the system for proper and quick
leachate collection at the landfill basement should consist of main leachate pipes and
branch leachate pipes, which are to be hydraulically big enough to allow the
maximum leachate flow and structurally strong enough against maximum static and
dynamic loads coming over from ultimate height of waste filling and equipment in
operation. Besides, they are also to be big enough to maintain permanent semi-aerobic
condition within the waste layers for the proposed landfill system (Fukuoka method of
semi-aerobic system)[22]
A herringbone shaped pipe system of drainage, and a storage facility with size
based on the volume of leachate generated, was designed. Main leachate pipe of
diameter 450 mm is selected in each active cell joined by branched leachate pipe of
diameter 250 mm and hence will formed a herringbone pipe system. It is desirable to
use a pipe diameter of at least 600 mm for the leachate collection discharge pipe when
using the “Fukuoka Method”. However, when using pipe materials that can be
obtained in developing countries, the larger the pipe the more there is anxiety
regarding the strength of the pipe. In this case, using a pipe diameter of 450 mm for
the main leachate collection discharge pipe will be adopted.[13], [22] The drainage
pipe used is High density Polyethene (HDPE) perforated pipe and not recommended
to used concrete pipe. The cross slope adopted is 2% and the suggested longitudinal
slope is 3%.

58
Estimation of peak leachate generation

The area of Active phase I is 6910 m2 and the annual precipitation last year in
PMC was 3,477 mm/year (Department of hydrology and meteorology, Nepal).
Assuming 80% precipitation in 5 months (monsoon period)[23], the peak leachate
generation is calculated as :
0.8∗6910∗3.477∗5
=
12∗12∗30
= 22.24 m3/day ~ 25m3/day
Adapt a drainage pipe size, cross slope and longitudinal slope
It is desirable to use a pipe diameter of at least 600 mm for the leachate
collection discharge pipe when using the “Fukuoka Method”. However, when using
pipe materials that can be obtained in developing countries, the larger the pipe the
more there is anxiety regarding the strength of the pipe. In this case, using a pipe
diameter of 450 mm for the main leachate collection discharge pipe will be adopted
[22]. The drainage pipe used is High density Polyethene (HDPE) perforated pipe and
not recommended to used concrete pipe. The adopted cross slope is 2% and the
longitudinal slope is 3%.

Calculation of drainage pipe distance (L) by mound’s model

The pipe spacing may be determined by the mound model.[21] In the Mound
Model, the maximum height of fluid between two parallel perforated drainage pipes is
equal to
L
Hmax= × ¿ × √(tan α 2+C )¿
4C
900 mm
Using, Hmax as half of the drainage layer. Hmax = = 450 mm = 0.45m
2
C = 25 m3 , α = 2% = 0.02 , we get
L
0.45= ׿ × √(tan 0.022+ 25)¿
4 ×25
L = 24.31 m ~ 25 m
So, the drainage pipe spacing will be at a distance of 25 meter.

59
1. Main leachate pipe
Perforated HDPE pipe of internal diameter 450 mm is selected for the main
leachate pipe. The pipe should be perforated in upper 2/3 part with circular holes of
25 mm diameter and in distance interval and pattern. The lower 1/3 part should be
non-perforated (full section) to allow smooth flow of the leachate collected without
leaking out from the pipe. [6], [22]Two main leachate pipe is selected for design.
The laying of main leachate collection pipes longitudinally over the prepared
top layer of compacted clay liner and along the gutter of basement prepared (sloped at
3%) deserves special attention for technical perfection, i.e. for being in line, level and
position as shown in the typical cross-section. It is to be noted that laying of the main
leachate pipe over the jute mat (underlined additionally with a sheet of 350 micron-
HDPE geomembrane sheet extended to the full width at the base of the filter material
to be placed over the pipe) should be such that the top of its lower 1/3 part (i.e. the
part without perforation) should be in level with the finished level of the top clay
liner.
The leachate pipe is then covered longitudinally with well-compacted filter material
of riverbed shingles/ pebbles (grain size: 50 – 150 mm) packed in shape and size as
shown in the drawing. The proposed width (more than 3d at the top and bottom) and
thickness of the packed filter material should not only facilitate the filtration of
leachate entering into the pipe perforation, but also increase the bearing capacity of
the pipe under static and dynamic loading coming over it during operation at critical
conditions.

60
2. Branched leachate pipe
Branch leachate pipe of diameter 250 mm HDPE (strength 10 kgf/cm2) should
be selected. 9 branched leachate pipe is selected in each active cell and hence make
altogether 18 branched leachate pipe with spacing of each pipe 25 meter.
The pipe should be perforated in upper 2/3 part with circular holes of 10 mm
diameter. The lower 1/3 part should be non-perforated (full section) to allow smooth
flow of the leachate collected without leaking out from the pipe. They should be laid
laterally (at intervals of 25m) inclined on both sides of the main leachate pipe over the
prepared top layer of clay liner (sloped at 4% cross to the longitudinal direction of the
valley). It is to be noted that laying of the branch leachate pipe over the jute mat
should be such that the top of its lower 1/3 part (i.e. the part without perforation)
should be in level with the finished level of the top clay liner.
The leachate pipe is then covered longitudinally with well-compacted filter
material of riverbed shingles/ pebbles (grain size: 50-150 mm) packed in shape and
size as shown in the drawing. The proposed width (more than 3d at the top and
bottom) and thickness of the packed filter material should not only facilitate the
filtration of leachate entering into the pipe perforation, but also increase the bearing
capacity of the pipe under static and dynamic loading coming over it during operation
at critical conditions.

61
5.6 Leachate treatment system

Due to various advantages like low cost, utilization of natural resources, cost
effectiveness and simple operation and maintenance constructed wetland system was
adopted for the treatment of leachate produced in landill.[24]
A constructed wetland is a shallow basin filled with some sort of filter material
(substrate), usually sand or gravel, and planted with vegetation tolerant of saturated
conditions. Leachate is introduced into the basin and flows over the surface or through
the substrate, and is discharged out of the basin through a structure that controls the
depth of the leachate in the wetland.
A constructed wetland comprises the following five major components:

1. Basin
2. Substrate
3. Vegetation
4. Liner
5. Inlet/Outlet arrangement system.
A constructed wetland is a complex assemblage of leachate, substrate, vegetation, and
an array of microorganisms (most importantly bacteria). Vegetation plays a vital role
in wetlands as they provide surfaces and a suitable environment for microbial growth
and filtration. Pollutants are removed within the wetlands by several complex
physical, chemical, and biological processes
A subsurface flow-constructed wetland system is selected for the design. There are
mainly two types of flow directions used in these wetlands. These are horizontal flow
(HF) and vertical flow (VF). A horizontal flow-constructed wetland system is
preferred over a vertical flow-constructed wetland system.
Horizontal flow wetland system
It is called HF wetland because the leachate is fed in at the inlet and flows slowly
through the porous substrate under the bed's surface in a more or less horizontal path
until it reaches the outlet zone. During this passage, the leachate will come into
contact with a network of aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic zones. The aerobic zones
will be around the roots and rhizomes of the wetland vegetation that leak oxygen into
the substrate. During the passage of leachate through the rhizosphere, the leachate is
cleaned by microbiological degradation and by physical and chemical processes. HF
wetlands can effectively remove the organic pollutants (TSS, BOD 5 and COD) from
the leachate. Due to the limited oxygen transfer inside the wetland, the removal of

62
nutrients (especially nitrogen) is limited, however, HF wetlands remove the nitrates in
the leachate.
Preliminary treatment
Preliminary treatment mainly separates the coarsely dispersed solids out of the liquid
phase. The preliminary treatment prepares wastewater influent for further treatment in
the wetland by reducing or removing problem wastewater characteristics that could
otherwise impede operation or unduly increase maintenance of the wetland and
pumps (if any). The typical problem characteristics include large solids and rags; grit;
odors etc.
The preliminary treatment of wastewater comprises mainly a screen and grit chamber.
A screen is a device with openings, generally of uniform size, that is used to retain
solids found in the influent wastewater to the treatment plant, which removes coarse
materials from the wastewater. Grit chambers remove grit, consisting of sand, gravel,
or other heavy solid materials that have specific gravities much greater than those of
the organic solids in the wastewater.
Primary treatment
Primary treatment separates the suspended matter by physical operations mainly
sedimentation. Raw wastewater contains suspended particulates heavier than water;
these particles tend to settle by gravity under quiescent conditions. Primary treatment
reduces suspended solids, and organic load to the wetland and also equalizes raw
wastewater quality and flow to a limited degree. Primary treatment is mainly focused
on the design of a leachate treatment system.
Septic tank
The septic tank is the most common primary treatment used in small-scale constructed
wetlands worldwide. A two-compartment septic tank will remove more solids than a
single-compartment tank. Septic tanks will generally need to be desludged otherwise,
they produce very poor effluents with high suspended solids content, which can be
detrimental to the constructed wetland (clogging of beds). To ensure continuous
effective operation, the accumulated material must therefore be emptied periodically.
This should take place when sludge and scum accumulation exceed 30 percent of the
tank’s liquid volume.

63
Design of septic tank
 The average volume of leachate (Q) = 11.63 m3/day
 Hydraulic Retention time (HRT) = 2 day = 48 hours (assumed)
 The required volume of septic tank = Q x HRT = 11.63 * 2 = 23.26 m3
 The volume of 1st compartment = 2/3 of required volume = 2/3 x 23.26 = 15.51
m3
 The volume of 2nd compartment = 1/3 of required volume = 1/3 x 23.26 = 7.75
m3
 Depth of septic tank = 2 m (assumed)
 Width of septic tank = 4 m (assumed)
Assume, free board = 0.3 m
Then,

 Length of 1st compartment = Volume / (Depth x Width) =15.51 / (1.7* x 4) = 2.28

m
 Length of 2nd compartment = Volume / (Depth x Width) = 7.75 / (1.7* x 4) =
1.14 m
The dimension of the septic tank will be 3.5m * 4m * 2m.

Sizing of the wetland

The wetland might be sized based on the equation proposed by Kickuth:

Qd (ln C i – ln Ce )
Ah = K BOD
K BOD

 Ah = Surface area of bed (m2)

 Qd = average daily flow rate of sewage (m3/d)
 Ci = influent BOD5 concentration (mg/l)
 Ce = effluent BOD5 concentration (mg/l)
 KBOD = rate constant (m/d)
KBOD is determined from the expression KTdn, where,

 KT = K20(1.06)(T-20)
 K20 = rate constant at 20 °C (d-1)
 T = operational temperature of the system (°C)
 d = depth of water column (m)
 n = porosity of the substrate medium (percentage expressed as a fraction)
KBOD is temperature dependent and the BOD degradation rate generally increases by
about 10 % per °C. Thus, the reaction rate constant for BOD degradation is expected

64
to be higher during summer than in winter. It has also been reported that the K BOD
increases with the age of the system.

KBOD for HF wetland

The figure shows KBOD for an HF wetland. The graph has been plotted based on the
above equation for temperatures ranging from 10 °C to 25 °C. The depth of the HF
wetland has been taken as 40 cm and the porosity of the substrate as 40%. The value
of K20 has been taken as 1.1 d-1

Figure 8 Kbod for HF wetland

Figure: KBOD for HF plotted against Temperature for substrate depth 40 cm and
porosity 40%

Calculation of sizing of HF wetland

To determine the influent BOD5 concentration, the wastewater sample should be

analyzed in an accredited laboratory. In the absence of a laboratory, the concentration
can calculate as below:

 The average volume of leachate (Qd) = 11.63 m3/day

 BOD5 concentration =3650 mg/l (3600-3700)
 Let us assume that 30% BOD 5 is removed by the primary treatment unit, then the
influent BOD5 concentration to the wetland (Ci) = 2555mg/l
 Effluent BOD5 concentration (Ce) =50 mg/l
 KBOD = 0.15 m/d for HF wetland
Substituting the values in the equation below:
Qd (ln C i – ln Ce )
Ah = K BOD
K BOD

65
we get, Area for HF wetland = 332.65 m2

66
Depth of HF wetland system

Most HF wetlands in Europe provide a bed depth of 60 cm (Cooper et al., 1996). In

the United States, HF wetlands have commonly been designed with beds 30 cm to 45
cm deep (Steiner and Watson, 1993). An experimental study carried out in Spain
showed that shallow HF wetlands with an average depth of 27 cm were more effective
than deep HF wetlands with an average water depth of 50 cm. (Garcia et al., 2004).
It is recommended to use an average depth of 40 cm taking into consideration of the
precipitation, which could cause surface flow.

Bed cross-section area for HF wetland

Dimensioning of the bed is derived from Darcy’s law and should provide subsurface
flow through the gravel under average flow conditions. Two important assumptions
have been made in applying the formula:

1. hydraulic gradient can be used in place of the slope, and

2. the hydraulic conductivity will stabilize at 10-3 m/s in the established wetland.

The equation is:

Qs
Ac =
K f (dH /ds )
Ac = Cross-sectional area of the bed (m2)
Qs = average flow (m3/s)
Kf = mathydraulic conductivity of the fully developed bed (m/s)
dH/ds = slope of the bottom of the bed (m/m)
For graded gravels a value of Kf of 1 x 10-3 to 3 x 10-3 m/s is normally chosen.
In most cases, dH/ds of 1% is used.
There is no hard and fast rule on the optimum width of the wetland, however, it is
recommended that if the width of the wetland is more than 15 m, the wetland cell
should be partitioned to avoid short-circuiting of wastewater inside the wetland. It
should also be kept in mind that it is better to use at least two parallel cells instead of
a single wetland cell for the ease of operation and maintenance of the wetland.
calculation of bed cross-section area:
we have,
Qs = 11.63
Kf = 2*10-3

67
dH
= 0.01
dS

11.63
Substituting the values in the above equation, Ac = ¿
2∗10 ¿ ¿
we get, Ac = 6.73 m2
Considering the depth of the wetland as 0.5 m, the width of the wetland would be
13.46 m.
Plan Area
Length of the wetland =
Width
= 332.65 / 13.46
=24.72 m
If the width of wetland was greater than 15 m then the cell should be partitioned, but
in our case the width is 13.46 < 15 m. So, no need of partitioning the cell.
Media selection of HF Wetland
the media in the inlet and outlet zones should be between 40 and 80 mm in diameter
to minimize clogging and should extend from the top to the bottom of the system. For
the treatment zone, there does not appear to be a clear advantage in pollutant removal
with different-sized media in the 10 to 60 mm range (U.S. EPA, 2000). The substrate
sizes, which use 40 – 80 mm media at the inlet/outlet zones and 5 – 20 mm at the
treatment zone
Bed slope
The top surface of the media should be level or nearly level for easier planting and
routine maintenance. Theoretically, the bottom slope should match the slope of the
water level to maintain a uniform water depth throughout the bed. A practical
approach is to uniformly slope the bottom along the direction of flow from inlet to
outlet to allow for easy draining when maintenance in required. A slope 1% is taken
for ease of construction and proper draining.
Sealing of bed
Subsurface flow wetlands providing secondary treatment should be lined to prevent
direct contact between the wastewater and groundwater. Native soils may be used to
seal the wetlands if they have sufficiently high clay content to achieve the necessary
permeability. The local soil having a hydraulic conductivity of 10 -8 m/s or less then it
is likely that it contained high clay content and could be “puddled” to provide

68
adequate sealing for the bed. The soil could be mixed with ordinary Portland cement
(8 kg/m2) to decrease the soil permeability and compacted to seal the wetlands.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene are other synthetic liners
that can be used. Liners should be selected based on its availability and cost
effectiveness. Preparation of the subgrade under the liner is crucial for successful liner
installation. The finished subgrade should be free from materials that might puncture
the liner.
Inlet and Outlet structures
Inlet and outlet structures distribute the flow into the wetland, control the flow path
through the wetland, and control the water depth. Multiple inlets and outlets spaced
across either end of the wetland are essential to ensure uniform influent distribution
into and flow through the wetland. These structures help to prevent “dead zones”
where exchange of water is poor, resulting in wastewater detention times that can be
much less than the theoretical detention times.
The inlet structure must be designed to minimize the potential for short-circuiting and
clogging in the media, and maximize even flow distribution, whereas, the outlet
structure must be designed to minimize the potential for short-circuiting, to maximize
even flow collection, and to allow the operator to vary the operating water level and
drain the bed.
Vegetation
Vegetation and its litter are necessary for successful performance of constructed
wetlands and contribute aesthetically to the appearance. Vegetation can be introduced
to a wetland by transplanting roots, rhizomes, tubers, seedlings, or mature plants; by
broadcasting seeds obtained commercially or from other sites; by importing substrate
and its seed bank from nearby wetlands; or by relying completely on the seed bank of
the original site. Phragmites karka and P. australis (Common Reed) is one of the
most productive, wide spread and variable wetland species in the world.
Common Reed is used as vegetation for the constructed wetland due to its climatic
tolerance and rapid growth, it is the predominant species used in constructed
wetlands. Common Reedbed have strong rhizomes and massive fibrous root,
facilitates deep root penetration, efficient oxygen transport into root zone to facilitate
oxidation of reduced toxic metals and support a large rhizosphere.

69
5.7 Design of Waste Retaining Wall

The design of the Counterfort Retaining wall is based on IS: 456-2000 code.
Height of wall above ground level(h) = 8 m
Soil bearing capacity of soil at site ( p) = 160 kN/m2
The angle of internal friction (Φ ) = 30°
Density of soil ( γ )= 16 kN/m3
The density of Municipal solid waste ( γs ¿ = 8 kN/m3
Materials = M20 grade concrete, Fe 415 HYSD bars
Step-1 : Dimensions of retaining wall

( )
2
P 1+sin ∅
Minimum depth of foundation =
γ 1−sin ∅
160 1 2
= ( )
16 3
= 1.1 m
Provide depth of foundation = 1.2 m
Overall height of wall (H) = (8 + 1.2) = 9.2 m
Spacing of counterforts;
Thumb rule,
L= 0.8√ H to 1.2√ H
∴L=3m
Thickness of counterfort;
L 3000
= = 300 mm
10 10
H H
Thickness of base slab = ¿
15 20
= 0.613 – 0.46 m
Provide 550 mm thick base slab
Base width = 0.6 × H to 0.7 × H
(0.6 × 9.2) = 5.52 m,
(0.7 × 9.2) = 6.44 m
Adopt base width (B) = 6 m
B
Toe projection = ( ) = 1.5 m
4
Design of vertical stem

70
 H 920
Vertical steam thickness = = = 460 mm
20 20
Height of vertical steam (hs) = H – Tbase
= 9.2 – 0.55
= 8.65 m
Adopt heel length = 6 –1.5 – 0.46 = 4.04 m
Step-2: Check for stability
Calculation of pressure coefficient;
1−sinΦ 1
Active pressure coefficient (ka) = =
1+sinΦ 3
1+sinΦ
Passive pressure coefficient (kp)= =3
1−sinΦ

Perpendicular distance
SN Type of load Horizontal Force (KN) from toe(m) Moment@Toe (kNm)
1 Stem (W1) 0.46*8.65*1*25=99.47 1.5 + 0.46/2=1.73 172.09
2 Base (W2) 0.55*6*25=82.5 6/2=3 247.5
3 waste (W3) 4.04*8.65*8=279.568 1.5+0.46+4.04/2=3.98 1112.68
Stabilizing
Total=461.543 moment=1532.27
Table 17 Vertical force Calculation

Perpendicular Moment @
S.N Type of load Horizontal Force (KN) distance from toe(m) Toe (kNm)
Pressure due
1 to waste 0.5* Ka*γ*H^2 H/3
0.5*1/3*8*9.2^2
    =112.8533 9.2/3=3.07 346.08
(0verturning
        moment)
Table 18 Horizontal Force Calculation
Check for stability against overturning
Stabilizing Moment ( Mr )
FOS against overturning = 0.9* >1.4
Overturning Moment (M 0)
1532.27
FOS against overturning = 0.9*
346.11
= 3.98 > 1.4

71
 Hence, Safe against overturning.
Check for stability against sliding
Resisiting force ( F)
FOS against sliding = 0.9* > 1.4
Sliding force(Pw )
Resisting force (F) = μ Σw (let μ=0.6)
= 0.6*461.543
= 276.926 kN
276.93
So, FOSsliding = 0.9* = 2.21 > 1.4
112.85
Calculate soil pressure below the footing
B ΣM −M 0 B
(e= - )<
2 Σw 6
6 1532.27−346.11
= -
2 461.543
= 0.43 < ¿ = 1) (OK)
Maximum and minimum pressure are at the base are given by ;
Σw 6e
q= (1± )
B B
461.543 6∗0.43
= (1± )
6 6
qmax = 110 kN/m2 <SBC (OK)
qmin = 43.85 kN/m2 <SBC > 0 (OK)
Step-3: Design of toe slab
Pressure due to self-weight of toe slab = 25*0.55 = 13.75kN/m2
P1 = qmax = 110 kN/m2
P2 = qmin = 43.85 kN/m2
110−43.85
P3 = 110 – *1.5
6
= 93.46 kN/m2
now,
Net pressure diagram = gross pressure at base – pressure due to self weight
Net upward pressure varies from 96.25 to 79.712
Assuming 16 mm 𝞥 bars and clear cover of 50 mm
16
∴ deff = 550 – 50 - = 492mm
2
Design of shear force (Vu) at ‘d’ from face of stem,

72
 96.25+79.7125
Vu = 1.5*( )*(1.5 – 0.492)
2
∴ Vu = 134.1 kN/m
Design of BM at face of steam slab is,
1.52 1.52 2 2
Mu = 1.5*((79.7125* ) + (96.25 – 79.7125)* × ×
2 2 3 3
= 143.71 kNm /m
The reinforcement in the stem is calculated from Annex G of IS CODE
456 :2000
A st f y
Mu = 0.87 fyAstd(1 - )
bdfck
Where,
fck = 20 N/mm2, fy = 415 N/mm2, b = 1000 mm
∴Ast = 853.623 mm2
Area of one 16 mm steel bar = 201.06 mm2
201.06∗1000
Spacing =
853.623
= 235.54 mm
Provide 16 mm Φ bars @ 230 mm c/c
Distribution reinforcement = 0.12 % b*d = 580 mm2/m
Step 4: Design of Heel Slab
W1 = 8*4.5*8.65 = 311.4 kN/m
W2 = 25*4*0.55 = 61.875 kN/m
pressure due to waste = 8*8.65 = 69.2 kN/m2
pressure due to self weight = 25*0.55 = 13.75 kN/m2
total downward pressure = 69.2 + 13.75 = 88.391 kN/m2
P4 = 88.391 (by interpolation with Pmax & Pmin)
thus, net downward pressure varies from -5.441 to 39.1 kN /m2
At support ,
−5.441+ 39.1
Wa = = 16.829 kN/m
2
d
Effective span (Le) = clear spacing between counterforts + *2
2
∴ Le = 3000 + 492 = 3492 mm
Max factored –ve BM occurs at counterfort support,

73
 2
Wu L 16.829× 3.4922
Mu = - 1.5* = 1.5* = 25.535 kNm/m
12 12
Max factored mid-span moment is,
2
1.5∗W u L
Mu = = 19.15 kNm/m
16
From Annex G of IS CODE 456 :2000
A st f y
Mu = 0.87 fyAstd(1 - )
bdfck
Take Mu as 25.535kNm/m
Where,
fck = 20 N/mm2, fy = 415 N/mm2, b = 1000 mm
∴Ast = 147.05mm2
Area of one 12 mm steel bar = 113.1 mm2
113.1∗1000
Spacing =
147.05
= 769.1 mm
Provide 12 mm Φ bars @ 750 mm c/c
Step 5:Design of vertical stem
Assuming 16 mm 𝞥 bars, and clear cover of 50 mm
deff = 460-50-16/2 = 402 mm
Effective span (Leff) = c/c length + deff
= 3402 mm
Force due to active waste pressure at base is ,
Pa = 1/3 * 8 * 8.65 = 23.06 kN/ m2 (linearly varies to zero at top )
Factored load (Wu) = 1.5 * Pa
= 34.6 kN/m2
Maximum factored -ve BM occurs at counterfort support ,
2
WuL 16.829× 3.4022
Mu = - 1.5* = 1.5* = 33.175 kNm/m
12 12
Max factored mid-span moment is,
2
W L
Mu = 1.5* u = 23.85 kNm/m
16
Designed Shear Force
clear span
Vu = wu ( – d)
2

74
 3
= 34.6 * ( – 0.402)
2
= 38.34 kN/m
Nominal shear stress
Vu 38.34∗103
τv = = = 0.1 N/mm2
bd 1000∗402
As shear stress is low, thickness of stem is okay for designed.
From Annex G of IS CODE 456 :2000
As t f y
Mu = 0.87fyAstd(1 - )
bd f ck
∴ Ast = 237.38 mm2
Area of one 16 mm steel bar = 201.061 mm2
201.061∗1000
Spacing = = 846.74
237.38
∴ Provide 16 mm 𝞥 bars @ 800 mm c/c

5.8

75
6 Design Summary

Design Life : 10 years

Landfill type : Semi-aerobic landfill
Landfilling method : Area method
Design Capacity : 28 MTPD
Landfilling Area : 13820 m2
No of cell :2
Avg Height of Landfill : 15 m
Bottom elevation :
Top elevation :
Longitudinal Slope : 3%
Cross Slope : 2%
Cut/Fill Area :
Finished level Slope : 1:4 (top) 1:3 (bottom)
Cut fill slope : 1:1(top) 1:3 (side)
Liner type : Single Composite Liner System
Leachate Collection Pipe : HDPE pipe Main (2) and Branch (18)
Leachate Pipe Spacing : 25m
Leachate Pipe Size : Main (450 mm) Branch (250 mm)
Perforation size : Main (25mm dia) Branch (20 mm)
Gas Vent : 160 mm dia PVC pipe
No of Gas Vent :
Gas Vent Protection : Cylindrical Gabion wall
Waste Retaining Dam : Counterfort Retaining Wall
Dam protection : Geomembrane
Dimension of retaining wall : 51*6*8
Average leachate volume :11.23 m3/day
Leachate treatment system : Constructed wetland system
Type of wetland system : Horizontal Flow Reed bed system
Primary Treatment method : Septic tank
No of compartment :2
Dimension :3.5m*4m*2m
Area of HF wetland : 332.65 m2

76
Depth of HF wetland : 0.5 m
Longitudinal slope : 1%
Dimension : 24.72 m * 13.46 m
Vegetation : Phragmites Karka and P australis (Common Reed)

77
 6.1 REFERENCES

[1] S. Bhattarai, “Solid Waste Generation and Management Practice in Pokhara,” JRCC,
2021.
[2] D. Pokhrel and T. Viraraghavan, “Municipal solid waste management in Nepal:
practices and challenges,” Waste Management, 2005.
[3] Centeral Bureau of Statistics, “Waste Management Baseline Survey of Nepal 2020,”
2020.
[4] E. M. Asefa, Y. T. Damtew, and K. B. Barasa, “Landfill Site Selection Using GIS
Based Multicriteria Evaluation Technique in Harar City, Eastern Ethiopia,” Environ
Health Insights, vol. 15, 2021, doi: 10.1177/11786302211053174.
[5] S. N. Dar, M. A. Wani, S. A. Shah, and S. Skinder, “Identification of suitable landfill
site based on GIS in Leh, Ladakh Region,” GeoJournal, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1499–
1513, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10708-018-9933-9.
[6] Y. Mohd Suffian and M. F. M. Ahmad Zamri, “Design and Operation of Semi-
Aerobic Landfill,” 2020, pp. 751–763. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-0948-7.ch035.
[7] Pokhara Resource Map, (Mar. 2018).
[8] “National Population and Housing Census,” 2021.
[9] Ş. Şener, E. Şener, B. Nas, and R. Karagüzel, “Combining AHP with GIS for landfill
site selection: A case study in the Lake Beyşehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey),”
Waste Management, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 2037–2046, Nov. 2010, doi:
10.1016/J.WASMAN.2010.05.024.
[10] Asian Development Bank., Solid waste management in Nepal : current status and
policy recommendations.
[11] S. L. Kareem, S. K. Al-Mamoori, L. A. Al-Maliki, M. Q. Al-Dulaimi, and N. Al-
Ansari, “Optimum location for landfills landfill site selection using GIS technique:
Al-Naja city as a case study,” Cogent Eng, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, doi:
10.1080/23311916.2020.1863171.
[12] G. Benezzine, A. Zouhri, and Y. Koulali, “AHP and GIS-Based Site Selection for a
Sanitary Landfill: Case of Settat Province, Morocco,” Journal of Ecological
Engineering, vol. 23, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.12911/22998993/143865.
[13] “PILOT PROJECT C: IMPROVEMENT OF FINAL DISPOSAL  PLANNING AND
OPERATION .”

78
[14] “City-level Assessment and Draft Service Improvement Plan for Solid Waste
Management For Pokhara Metropolitan City Strategic assessment of solid waste
management services and systems in Nepal,” 2020. [Online]. Available:
http://www.copyright.com/.
[15] D. R. Pathak, “Quantification and characterization of the municipal solid waste for
sustainable waste management in newly formed municipalities of Nepal,” Waste
Management & Research, vol. 38, pp. 1007–1018, May 2020, doi:
10.1177/0734242X20922588.
[16] B. Rimal, “Urbanization and the Decline of Agricultural Land in Pokhara Sub-
metropolitan City, Nepal,” Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 5, pp. 54–65, Dec.
2012, doi: 10.5539/jas.v5n1p54.
[17] K. K. Shrestha, “Sustainable Management of Solid Waste in Nepal: Comparative
Study of Landfills in Kathmandu and Pokhara,” Mar. 2013.
[18] “Diversion of Waste from Landfill in Europe,” European Environment Agency, Nov.
2022.
[19] D. R. Pathak, Status and Potential of Resource Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste
in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. 2019. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35951.38561.
[20] P. Carey and G. Carty, “ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LANDFILL
MANUALS LANDFILL SITE DESIGN.” [Online]. Available: www.epa.ie
[21] A. Ghníomhaireacht and C. Comhshaoil, “ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY LANDFILL MANUALS LANDFILL SITE DESIGN.” [Online].
Available: www.epa.ie
[22] K. Matsufuji, “Caution For Application of ‘Fukuoka Method,’” 2007.
[23] Y. Dahal and B. Adhikari, “Sanitary landfill design for sustainable solid waste
management in jeetpur simara sub-metropolitan city, Nepal,” EnvironmentAsia, vol.
11, no. 3, pp. 263–272, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.14456/ea.2018.53.
[24] “Constructed Wetland Manual,” 2008
 

79