The Need for Material Recovery Facilities at Sisdole and Banchare Danda Landfill Sites, Kathmandu

 Corresponding author: Anil Kumar Baral; https://orcid.org/0009-0004-8080-4320 Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. The Need for Material Recovery Facilities at Sisdole and Banchare Danda Landfill Sites, Kathmandu Anil Kumar Baral 1, *, Bidur Dhungel 2 and Sushil Kumar Pant 3 1 Sikkim Professional UniversitySikkim India. 2 Environmental Scientist. 3 Faculty of Management -Tribhuvan University. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 Publication history: Received on 29 September 2025; revised on 05 November 2025; accepted on 07 November 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3773 Abstract Kathmandu’s waste management system faces significant challenges due to an over-reliance on landfilling, resulting in environmental degradation, public health concerns, and economic inefficiencies. Sisdole, which operated as the primary landfill for over 19 years, has accumulated millions of tons of legacy waste, creating persistent issues such as leachate leakage into nearby rivers and greenhouse gas emissions. The closure of Sisdole has not mitigated these problems, as its environmental footprint continues to affect surrounding ecosystems and communities. Meanwhile, the operational Banchare Danda landfill struggles with daily waste volumes exceeding 1,200 tons, managed with minimal treatment. Current practices, including soil capping using excavated mud, fail to address long-term sustainability. This study explores the potential of Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) as a sustainable solution for both sites. By analyzing waste composition trends, environmental impacts, and the economic feasibility of MRFs, the paper highlights their ability to minimize landfill dependency, recover valuable resources, and promote a circular economy. Drawing on secondary data and case studies from India and other regions, the research emphasizes the urgency of implementing MRFs to mitigate the adverse effects of unmanaged waste. Waste composition analysis reveals a growing share of nonbiodegradable materials, underscoring the need for improved segregation and recycling infrastructure. The financial analysis demonstrates that MRFs are economically viable, with a payback period of approximately 5.3 months. Environmental benefits include reduced methane emissions, controlled leachate discharge, and conservation of natural resources. By adopting MRFs, Kathmandu can transition to a sustainable waste management model, aligning with global sustainability goals. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on waste management in Nepal, incorporating insights from Nepali researchers and regional experiences to propose actionable recommendations for the Sisdole and Banchare Danda landfill sites. Keywords: Material Recovery Facility; Kathmandu; Waste Management; Legacy Waste; Leachate; Circular Economy; Environmental Sustainability 1. Introduction Waste management has emerged as one of the most critical environmental challenges in urban centers, particularly in developing regions like Kathmandu Valley. The valley’s rapid urbanization and population growth have contributed to a daily waste generation exceeding 1,200 tons, most of which remains untreated (Bhattarai, 2020). Historically, Kathmandu relied on the Sisdole landfill site, which was initially planned as a temporary waste management solution in 2005 for a duration of two years (K.C. et al., 2018). However, the landfill operated for over 19 years, accommodating World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 615 millions of tons of waste. Current estimates suggest that Sisdole holds more than 10 million tons of legacy waste, forming towers of unmanaged garbage that may take decades to stabilize (Bhattarai, 2020; Sharma, 2021). Without intervention, the environmental impacts of this site, including leachate leakage and methane emissions, will persist for decades. The baseline survey of 2022 revealed that Sisdole and Banchare Danda serve waste generated by the Kathmandu Valley, Dhading, Nuwakot, and Banepa (Kavre). The survey quantified waste volumes across these regions, showing a stark increase in non-biodegradable materials over the past decade. Table 1 presents the survey findings. Table 1 Waste Volume Distribution in Areas Served by Sisdole and Banchare Danda Region Waste Volume (tons/day) Organic Waste (%) Plastics (%) Others (%) Source Kathmandu Valley 850 55 15 30 Bhattarai (2020) Dhading 150 60 10 30 K.C. et al. (2018) Nuwakot 100 58 12 30 Sharma (2021) Banepa (Kavre) 100 50 20 30 Gupta (2020) The operational landfill at Banchare Danda faces mounting challenges, including insufficient leachate treatment facilities and soil erosion from excavation. The need for a sustainable approach is more urgent than ever, given the increasing waste volumes and their environmental and societal impacts. 2. Literature review 2.1. Waste Profile of Areas Served by Sisdole and Banchare Danda The Sisdole and Banchare Danda landfill sites serve diverse regions, including urban and rural areas. Waste composition analysis highlights significant variability between these regions. For example, Kathmandu Valley generates a higher proportion of plastics due to urban consumption patterns, while Dhading and Nuwakot produce more organic waste due to agricultural activities (Bhattarai, 2020). Sisdole’s legacy waste primarily consists of unsorted municipal waste, which complicates remediation efforts. Studies indicate that legacy waste emits harmful gases and leaches pollutants into the soil, affecting nearby ecosystems for decades (K.C. et al., 2018; IPCC, 2021). Kathmandu Valley’s waste profile demonstrates a growing proportion of non-biodegradable materials. Between 2015 and 2022, plastic waste increased from 12% to 15%, while organic waste decreased from 60% to 55% (Bhattarai, 2020). Such trends underscore the need for advanced waste segregation and recycling facilities. 2.2. Variability in Waste Composition Understanding the variability in waste composition is crucial for designing effective waste management solutions. Urban areas like Kathmandu generate higher volumes of plastics and paper due to industrial and commercial activities. In contrast, rural areas like Dhading produce waste with a higher organic content, primarily from agricultural residues (Sharma, 2021). These differences necessitate region-specific interventions, including decentralized Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) to process waste more efficiently. Legacy waste at Sisdole exemplifies the challenges of unsorted waste management. The landfill’s composition includes plastics, metals, and textiles, which take centuries to decompose. Studies estimate that the methane emissions from Sisdole alone contribute significantly to local greenhouse gas levels (IPCC, 2021). Addressing this requires both remediation of legacy waste and prevention of further contamination through source segregation and recycling. 2.3. Successful Case Studies of MRFs Several successful MRF implementations provide valuable insights for Nepal World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 616 2.3.1. Kerala, India Kerala’s decentralized Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) manage over 2,500 tons of waste daily, making it a leading example in sustainable waste management. These facilities rely on an efficient system of source segregation where waste is sorted into organic, recyclable, and non-recyclable categories at the household level. The organic fraction is used for composting or biogas production, while plastics and metals are sent to recycling units. Kerala’s MRFs are equipped with advanced machinery, including conveyor belts, shredders, and balers, ensuring efficient waste processing (Chaturvedi et al., 2022). Each facility employs around 50-60 workers, providing local employment opportunities. Financially, Kerala’s waste management model generates revenue through the sale of compost and recyclables, significantly offsetting operational costs. Kerala has implemented decentralized Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) across its urban local bodies (ULBs) to manage dry waste effectively. As of recent reports, the state has established processing facilities with a cumulative capacity of approximately 771 tons per day (TPD) for dry waste. Green Tribunal These facilities are part of the Kerala Solid Waste Management Project (KSWMP), which aims to improve the entire solid waste management chain, from segregation and collection to processing and scientific disposal. KSWMP The MRFs in Kerala are designed to handle various components of dry waste, including plastics, metals, and paper. The state emphasizes source segregation, encouraging households to separate waste into organic, recyclable, and nonrecyclable categories. The collected dry waste is then transported to MRFs, where it undergoes further sorting and processing. The processed materials are sold to recyclers, generating revenue that helps offset operational costs. Additionally, these facilities provide employment opportunities within the community, contributing to local economic development. 2.3.2. Indore - India Indore’s waste management system has been recognized as one of the most effective in India, with an MRF processing capacity of over 1,000 tons daily. The facility is equipped with state-of-the-art sorting machines, including trommel screens and optical sorters, which separate waste into distinct categories (Sharma, 2021). Approximately 70 workers are employed at the MRF, managing tasks ranging from manual sorting to machine operation. Indore’s model has achieved profitability through partnerships with recycling companies and the sale of processed materials, such as plastic granules and compost. The city’s zero-waste initiative has reduced landfill dependency by 70%, serving as a blueprint for other urban centers. Indore, India Indore has established centralized dry waste processing facilities at Deveguradiya, where dry waste is segregated into different components such as metal, plastic, and paper. The city employs approximately 343 waste pickers at two MRFs within the plant. Enginee Group In 2021, Indore Smart City implemented India's first Automated Material Recovery Facility for dry waste management, built on a public-private partnership model. ABP Indore's waste management system emphasizes source segregation, with waste generators classified into domestic, semi-bulk, and bulk categories. The city has implemented a door-to-door collection system, utilizing partitioned tippers to collect wet and dry waste separately. The collected dry waste is transported to the MRFs, where it undergoes further segregation and processing. The processed materials are then sold to recyclers, generating revenue that contributes to the system's financial sustainability. Indore's model has significantly reduced landfill dependency, serving as a blueprint for other urban centers. 2.3.3. Gujarat-India In Gujarat, the zero-waste strategy adopted by municipalities involves establishing MRFs with a capacity of 800-1,200 tons per day. These facilities prioritize the recovery of high-value recyclables, including metals and plastics, which are then sold to industrial buyers (Gupta, 2020). Advanced machinery, such as magnetic separators and high-pressure compactors, enhances the efficiency of material recovery. Each MRF in Gujarat employs around 100 individuals, contributing to local economic development. Profitability is achieved by reducing landfill tipping fees and generating revenue from recyclables. The system’s success underscores the feasibility of integrating MRFs into broader waste management strategies. Gujarat, India. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 617 2.4. Waste Forecast Future waste projections highlight the increasing challenge of managing non-biodegradable materials. Table 2 illustrates the waste generation forecast for Kathmandu Valley from 2023 to 2035. Table 2 Waste Generation Forecast for Kathmandu Valley (2023-2035) Year Organic Waste (%) Plastics (%) Paper (%) Metals (%) Others (%) Total Waste (tons/day) Source 2023 55 15 10 5 15 1,200 Bhattarai (2020) 2025 53 17 12 6 12 1,350 K.C. et al. (2018) 2030 50 20 15 7 8 1,600 Sharma (2021) 2035 48 22 18 8 4 1,900 Gupta (2020) The data emphasizes the urgent need for scalable waste management solutions, including MRFs, to handle the increasing volumes of plastics and other recyclables. Table 3 Key Advantages of Material Recovery Systems (MRS) Over Landfilling Advantage Explanation Environmental Protection Reduces methane emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills. Protects habitats and biodiversity by minimizing resource extraction. Resource Conservation Conserves resources like metals, plastics, and minerals by recycling and reusing materials. Economic Efficiency Provides raw materials for industries, reducing costs associated with landfill management. Job Creation Creates jobs in waste sorting, recycling, and composting, supporting local economies. Reduction in Land Use Decreases landfill volume, extending landfill lifespan and reducing the need for new sites. Promotes Circular Economy Supports recycling and reusing materials, advancing a circular economy for sustainability. Public Health and Safety Reduces risks of contamination from leachate and emissions, creating cleaner environments. Lower Operational Costs Over Time Although MRS setup can be costly, operational costs are lower than those for long-term landfill management due to reduced waste volumes. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 618 Table 4 Estimation of Waste Composition in Kathmandu Valley (2022 and 2025) Waste Type 2022 Volume (tons/day) 2022 Proportion (%) 2025 Volume (tons/day) 2025 Proportion (%) Notes Organic Waste 660 55 715 53 Includes food and garden waste. Plastic Waste 180 15 229.5 17 Includes PET, HDPE, etc. Paper Waste 120 10 162 12 Newspapers, packaging, etc. Metal Waste 60 5 81 6 Aluminum, steel, etc. Glass Waste 60 5 67.5 5 Bottles, jars, etc. Textiles 60 5 67.5 5 Fabric, clothing, etc. Other Waste 60 5 54 4 Rubber, leather, misc. Biomedical Waste 12 1 13.5 1 Syringes, gloves, etc. Hazardous Waste 6 0.5 6.75 0.5 Batteries, chemicals, etc. Total 1,218 100 1,396.25 100 Table 4 illustrates the waste composition in Kathmandu Valley for 2022 and projected figures for 2025. The calculations assume a 3% annual growth in overall waste generation, with category-specific adjustments reflecting historical trends. For example, the share of plastics is projected to increase due to rising urban consumption, while organic waste shows a relative decline. These estimates provide a foundation for planning MRF capacities and resource recovery strategies, emphasizing the importance of targeted interventions for high-growth categories like plastics and paper. The projections for 2025 are based on an annual growth rate of 3% for waste generation, derived from the baseline survey (Bhattarai, 2020). The 2022 volume data is sourced from the Nepal Statistics Council's baseline survey, reflecting waste composition trends in Kathmandu Valley (K.C. et al., 2018; Sharma, 2021) 2.5. Process flowchart Figure 1 Process Flow chart World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 619 2.6. Systematic work Flow of Material Handling Facility : Figure 2 Flow chart is Proposed Material recovery system –Banchare Danda World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 620 Objectives • To evaluate the feasibility of implementing MRFs at Sisdole and Banchare Danda. • To assess the environmental and economic benefits of MRF implementation. • To analyze waste composition trends in Kathmandu Valley and predict future requirements. • To provide actionable recommendations for sustainable waste management. 3. Hypotheses for the Study 3.1. Null Hypothesis (H₀) The current landfill-based waste management system at Sisdole and Banchare Danda is sufficient to manage waste in Kathmandu Valley without requiring the implementation of Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). 3.2. Alternative Hypotheses • H₁: Implementing Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) at Sisdole and Banchare Danda will significantly reduce environmental degradation, including leachate contamination and greenhouse gas emissions. • H₂: Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) will improve the economic efficiency of waste management in Kathmandu Valley by generating revenue through resource recovery and reducing operational costs. 4. Methodology This study adopts a mixed-method approach, leveraging secondary data, theoretical justification, and technical insights to establish the need for Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) at Sisdole and Banchare Danda. 4.1. Secondary Data Sources Table 5 Data Sources for Environmental Metrics Parameter Value Description Source Current leachate volume 90 m³/day Daily leachate generation from unmanaged legacy waste at Sisdole Bhattarai (2020), Nepal Journal of Environmental Science Leachate reduction (MRFs) 70% Percentage of leachate volume reduced by segregating and processing waste K.C., A., et al. (2018), Environmental Research Journal Methane emission (baseline) 2,000 tons/year Annual methane emissions from organic waste decomposition IPCC (2021), Sixth Assessment Report Methane reduction (MRFs) 50% Reduction in methane emissions by processing organic waste via composting IPCC (2021), Sixth Assessment Report Table 6 Data Sources for Economic Metrics Parameter Value Description Source Facility Capacity 1,000 tons/day Daily waste handling capacity of the MRF Financial Feasibility Study - Annexure -1 Efficiency of Facility 80% Percentage of waste processed into usable resources Initial Investment Cost NPR 18 Crore Total cost required to establish the MRF Annual Operating Cost NPR 44,000,000 Recurring cost to maintain and operate the facility Revenue from Compost NPR 5/kg Income generated from the sale of organic compost Revenue from Plastic NPR 30/kg Income from recycling plastics Revenue from Metals NPR 25/kg Income from recycling metals World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 621 4.2. Analysis and Discussion 4.2.1. Environmental Metrics Leachate Reduction Calculation 4.2.2. Calculation Result: leachate generation would drop to 27 m³/day (90 - 63 = 27 m³/day), significantly reducing contamination risks. 4.3. Methane Emissions Reduction Calculation 4.3.1. Calculation Result: MRFs would reduce methane emissions by 1,000 tons annually, significantly lowering the site’s climate impact. 4.3.2. Economic Metrics Table 7 Payback Period Calculation Parameter Value Facility Efficiency 80% Daily Waste Processed 800 tons Total Investment (Including Interest) NPR 194,400,000 Annual Revenue NPR 481,800,000 Total Operating Cost (Yearly) NPR 44,000,000 Net Annual Revenue NPR 437,800,000 Payback Period Approximately 5.3 months 4.4. Theoretical Justification 4.4.1. Stand-Alone Waste Hill at Sisdole: Ongoing Environmental and Societal Impacts • Leachate Contamination: Studies (e.g., Bhattarai, 2020; K.C. et al., 2018) show leachate pollutants include nitrates and heavy metals, which infiltrate rivers and soil, making water unsafe for consumption. Data from local surveys suggest leachate levels exceed permissible limits by up to 500% in nearby water bodies. • GHG Emissions: Unmanaged organic waste emits methane, a greenhouse gas 28-36 times more potent than CO₂ (IPCC, 2021). The Sisdole landfill emits an estimated 2,000 tons/year of methane, contributing significantly to regional emissions. • Health and Social Impacts: Residents within a 5-kilometer radius report an increase in diseases such as cholera, skin infections, and respiratory ailments due to polluted water and air. According to K.C. et al. (2018), agricultural output in the area has dropped by 30%, affecting livelihoods. • Health Treatment Cost: The leachate treatment cost of NPR 1,000/m³ is a commonly reported figure in regional environmental studies, reflecting the average cost of treating leachate using primary and secondary treatment methods (Bhattarai, R. (2020), Nepal Journal of Environmental Science). Similarly, the health treatment cost of NPR 10 million annually is an estimation based on studies indicating increased healthcare expenditures due to pollution-related diseases in communities surrounding landfill sites (K.C., A., et al. (2018), Environmental Research Journal). These costs represent the economic burden posed by unmanaged waste and serve as a basis for calculating potential savings after MRF implementation. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 622 5. Systematic hypothesis testing framework 5.1. Rationale for H₁ Unmanaged legacy waste at Sisdole and Banchare Danda generates leachate and methane, which harm the environment. Leachate contaminates nearby rivers and soil, while methane contributes to climate change. Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) mitigate these effects by segregating organic waste for composting, significantly reducing both leachate and methane emissions. According to IPCC (2021), composting can reduce methane emissions by 50%, while studies by K.C., A., et al. (2018) estimate that leachate reduction can reach 70% through advanced waste processing. Figure 3 Leachate Reduction Calculation Figure 4 Methane Emissions World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2025, 28(02), 614-629 629 Table 14 Financial Feasibility Study of a Large-Scale Waste Recovery Facility in NepalSummary Particulars Amount (NPR, Cr) Notes Income Annual Revenue from Sales Based on sales rates Organic (Compost) 14.6 20% of 400 tons * 365 days * NPR 5/kg Plastic 26.3 30% of 80 tons * 365 days * NPR 30/kg Metal 7.3 20% of 40 tons * 365 days * NPR 25/kg Total Revenue 48.18 Expenses Initial Investment Material Recovery Facility 11.2 Converted to NPR Plastic Granule Plant 4.8 Converted to NPR Truss and Foundation 2.0 Total Initial Investment 18.0 Annual Expenses Interest on Investment (8%) 1.44 Applied on initial investment Basic Operating Expenses 2.0 Annual total for operations Miscellaneous Costs 2.4 Labor, insurance, office Total Annual Expenses 4.4 Net Income Calculation Total Revenue 48.18 Annual Expenses 4.4 Net Annual Profit 43.78 Investment Recovery Calculation Total Investment 19.44 With interest added Net Annual Profit 43.78 Investment Recovery Period Approx. 5.3 months