“WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HETAUDA”

A PROJECT WORK SUBMITTED FOR THE PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR GRADE 12
SCIENCE IN CHEMISTRY
By
Yogesh kharel
Sujeet Shrestha
Saugat Bartaula
Sampanna Dhakal
Aman Kumar Mandal
Grade 12
2079

Hetauda School of Management and Social Sciences

National Education Board (NEB)
Hetauda, Makwanpur, Nepal
Date: (2079/08/10)

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
The project entitled “WASTE MANAGEMENT” by Mr. Yogesh kharel,
Mr. Aman Kumar Mandal, Mr.Sujeet Shrestha Mr. Saugat bartaula, Mr.
Sampanna dhakal under the supervision of Saroj Adhikhari , Hetauda
School of Management and Social Sciences, Nepal is hereby submitted
for the partial fulfillment of the requirement of Chemistry in Grade 12.
This project work has not been submitted in any other school or
institution previously for Grade 12.

-------------------------- ----------------------------

Supervisor Head of the

Department
Saroj Adhikari Sameer gautam
Department of Chemistry Department of Chemistry
Hetauda School of Management Hetauda School of
Management
 RECOMMENDATION LETTER
This is to certify that the project work entitled “WASTE
MANAGEMENT” has been carried out by “Yogesh Kharel,Sampanna
Dhakal,Sujeet Shrestha,Aman kumar Mandal,Saugat Bartaula” as a
partial fulfillment of Grade 12 in Chemistry under my supervision. To
the best of knowledge, this work has not been submitted to any other
purpose in this institute. I, therefore recommend the project work for
appraisal.

---------------------
Saroj adhikari
Department of Chemistry
Hetauda School of Management and Social Sciences
Hetauda 4, Makwanpur
Date: (2079/08/12)
 DECLARATION

We, “Yogesh Kharel,Sujeet Shrestha,Saugat Bartaula,Sampanna

Dhakal,Aman Kumar Mandal” declare that the project entitled “WASTE
MANAGEMENT” under the supervision of “Saroj sir” ,Hetauda School
of Management and social sciences ,Hetauda ,Nepal )”presented herein
is genuine work done originally by us and has not been published or
submitted elsewhere for the requirement of any degree program . Any
literature, data or works done by others and cited in this project work has
been given due acknowledgement and listed in the reference section.

-------------------------------------------------------
“Yogesh Kharel,Sujeet Shrestha,Saugat Bartaula,Sampanna
Dhakal,Aman Kumar Mandal”
Grade: XII
Email addresses:Yogesh1136@hsmonline.edu.np
Saugat381@hsmonline.edu.np
Aman153@hsmonline.edu.np
Sampanna948@hsmonline.edu.np
 Sujit953@hsmonline.edu.np

Date: 20789/07/30

Introduction
Industrialization and Urbanization has led to numerous problems from
overexploitation of natural resources to increment in the amount of
waste production. The increase in the population and the change in the
lifestyle of the people have led to high daily consumption patterns
leading to even higher production of solid waste (Thapa and K.C.,2011).
It is expected that the solid waste production in Asia would reach around
1.8 million tons per day in 2025 (Pokharel and Viraraghavan, 2005).Like
the other developing countries, Nepal is not aloof of this problem. In
accordance with the enactment of local self-governance act (1999),
municipalities are the responsible authorities for the management of
solid wastes (Thapa and K.C., 2011). Since then, they are taking care of
the wastes generated by the respective municipalities with the available
resources. Although, small urban centres have been declared
municipalities, they have been constantly suffering from the lack of
infrastructural, financial and technical resources for the Management of
wastes (Water Aid, 2008).This paper aims to highlight the type of the
solid wastes generated and the practices ofSolid Waste Management
(SWM) in Hetauda Municipality of Nepal reflecting the present scenario
of other municipalities of Nepal.
The present research was carried out in Hetauda municipality, Nepal.
Hetauda is a mid-sized municipality with an area of 47.77 km2. It is
located in mid-south of Nepal, 225 km from Kathmandu. It is divided
into 11 wards (Practical Action, 2008). Hetauda municipality was
established in 1969, and consists of 11 wards of which 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and
10 are located in urban areas. Ward 6 is in a semi-urban area and
remaining wards 7, 8 and 11 are in rural pockets. The study area
(27025'0"N, 8502'0"E) falls in sub-tropical region, intermingled into
Chure and Mahabharat ranges. Hetauda is 300 to 390 m above meansea
level( ms l ). 23% of the municipality is covered by forest, 45%
agricultural area, 11% residential10% industrial, 7% urban and 4% is
other (Hetauda Municipality Office, 2012).
Residential settlements are clusters in urban areas whereas semi
urban/rural areas exist as sparsely populated. Commercial settlements
are located on the main road along the highway. Shops dominate the
commercial settlements with patchy localities of hotels and restaurants
in the urban areas. Industrial area is known as Hetauda Industrial
District(HID).There is one landfill site located in Bhutan Devi
Community Forest occupying 27,085 sq. m of land. About 10 tons of
waste is disposed of at a distance of 1.5 km from the main city. Such
practice has been in operation since 2058 (Hetauda MunicipalityOffice,
2012).
The study was conducted in selected wards (1, 2, 3, 4 and 10) of the
municipality.
Methodology
The study was carried out in 5 wards of Hetauda municipality, divided
into three groups (household, commercial and institutions). For the
collection of data, samples of wastes were procured from ten
households, one hotel-restaurant, shop, school-college and government/
non-government office each from selected wards.
For effective sampling, following steps were carried out:
· Profile of each ward was studied regularly on visits to the respective
ward.
Ÿ Settlement pattern was observed and delineated in each locality
Ÿ For the household survey, economic and social status of inhabitants
was estimated
Ÿ For evaluating the pattern of settlement, each house was chosen to get
a representative sample of the study area.
For the primary data collection, standard questionnaires were used for
interviewing the people inhibiting the selected sites. At the same time,
the wastes generated at sites in 24 hours were weighed using spring
balance. Later, the wastes were segregated into chief components which
were weighed again. The secondary data was collected from the Hetauda
municipality office. To study quality control and assurance, the
measurement was repeated until the consistent results were obtained.
Also, the questionnaire form was repeatedly checked to reduce the error.
Results and discussion
Food waste (organic) was dominant in the household of Hetauda
Municipality which was around 51%. Plastic and paper/ paper products
were generated around 15% and 27% respectively. Remaining 7%
consisted of glass and some metals and textiles Another source of waste
generation was commercial complexes. Commercial wastes were
generated mostly from hotels and restaurants which included organic
waste in huge amounts. The organic waste included a large amount of
vegetable products produced during the making of food whereas the
leftover food was also dominant. After organic waste,plastic, paper and
metal cans were generated as commercial waste (Asian Development
Bank, 2013).
School/colleges and offices fall under the institutional category,
institutional waste consisted mostly of paper (38%) and plastic (33%).
Here organic wastes were very less in quantity. Organic wastes were
seen in some offices where they run canteen (Asian Development Bank,
2013).
The domestic waste varied in each household and each ward. The
highest domestic waste was found in ward number 4. Figure 1 shows the
waste from individuals’ households from each ward.

Existing solid waste management system

Solid waste management in Hetauda is done by the Hetauda
Municipality office in correspondence with two organisations named
Green and Clean City and Clean the Nepal.
Collection practice in every ward is different. In some wards, the
collection of waste is done on alternate days or in the difference of two
days whereas in some wards the collection is done once a week. For
households, the above mentioned organisations are responsible for
collection of the waste.
In the market and commercial complex, the municipality bears the
responsibility for collection and disposal. The municipality office offers
service in wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10.
In the remaining wards municipality provides service once or twice a
month. Houses adjacent to the road also give away their waste to the
municipality truck. Existing waste generation patterns can be
summarised as in Table 1 and the details have been described below.
Table 1: Waste generation pattern

SN. Type Amount (tons/day)

1 Domestic waste 2.29
2 Commercial waste 2.20
3 Institutional waste 2.33
4 Industrial waste 2.30
Collection and segregation
For the collection of the waste that is generated from households,
commercial buildings and institutions, the municipality truck/ tractor is
used early in the morning. Door to door collection system has been
implemented using tricycles (PracticalAction, 2008). Street sweeping is
done side by side during the collection of waste and the collected waste
from the street is also carried by the truck/ tractor. All the wastes are
taken in the same vehicle and segregated in the landfill site. Previously,
metal containers had been used in order to improve the efficiency of the
collection operation. However, the local people rejected this method of
storage because of the unpleasant smell coming from the containers and
the scattering of waste around the container by animals (Hetauda
Municipality, 2012).Source segregation is commonly not practised in
households. There are very few houses where segregation is done
beforehand.
Primary transportation and transfer station
For primary transportation in the household, Green and Clean City and
Clean the Nepal are mobilised at the local level. Green and Clean City
has a rickshaw/cart for the collection of solid waste. It has 6 carts and
carries 24 lots of waste (times) on average. Another organisation Clean
the Nepal has 1 tractor and 1 cart for the collection. There is no transfer
station. So, all the wastes are directly carried to the landfill site.
Final transportation and disposal method
After the collection of the waste, it is taken to the dumping site.
Dumping site is located in ward number 10. The place is near the Rapti
River and called Rapti Bagar and the area is located in the forest area of
Bhutan Devi. The existing equipment for final disposal are bulldozers,
tractor/ power tiller, tipper/dump trucks and water tanker (Hetauda
Municipality, 2012).
In the landfill site, the waste is segregated and is dumped. The waste is
compacted manually and for proper compaction, a water tanker is used.
Since open dumping is the way of disposal, there is a problem of
haphazard scavengers and animals entering the site. Another problem in
the site is leachate.
Resource recovery methods

Recycling
Recycling and reuse practice is not seen in the household level. All the
waste generated is discarded and sent for disposal. However, there are
around 100 scrap dealers (kaadi) who collect recyclable products which
is around 300 kg/day which has around 150 kg of plastics per day. The
types of materials mostly being recycled are plastic, papers, glasses and
metals.
Composting
Composting at the household level is seen in households having
abundant space. They normally dig a pit and keep organic waste so that
they could use it as compost in their field. However there are no
composting plants on the community level . Composting plant in the
municipality has been constructed in ward no. 10 in Bhutan Devi forest
of 3 tons capacity. It is at the distance of 1.5 km from the main city and
is in the phase of operation.
Special waste management
Special wastes such as hospital waste, slaughterhouse, toxic and
hazardous waste are disposed of and treated by the concerned agencies
themselves. They burn the waste using incinerators. The benefit of self-
treatment is that the toxic waste does not mix up with the solid waste
and it does not have an impact on human life and also does not have a
negative impact on the land fill site. However, if the hazardous/toxic
waste is not well treated and if complete combustion is not done; it
produces harmful gases causing impact on humans and environment.
Public awareness and community mobilisation
Public awareness program has been conducted by private organisations
in the municipality in collaboration with the local leaders several times.
Although programs were conducted, manypeople seemed unaware of
such programs. However, there has been some positive change in the
behaviour of the people as they have started to dispose of their waste in
a proper and prescribed place. Moreover, the municipality has declared
some places as plastic bags prohibited areas which is quite appreciable.
Problems and issues of the existing SWM practice
Sustainability of the system
The door to door service has been running for seven years. Also from
big commercial complexes and institutions, huge amounts of waste are
generated. The waste carrying vehicle could not carry all the waste at a
time. Since only one dumping site exists, it is difficult to manage the
waste.
Issues related to dumping /landfill site
There is only one dumping and all the waste is dumped there. Since it is
open dumping, the entry of scavengers and animals is a great problem.
Above all, there’s a problem of leaching. If well managed, the lifespan
of a landfill site is around thirty years but if the existing way continues,
the life span is estimated for ten years.
On a legal basis, the area of landfill site is facing a court petition. Since
the land belongs to the community forest, the users have filed a case in
the court against the construction of landfill (Hetauda Municipality,
2012).

A baseline survey was conducted to explore the status of the Solid Waste
Management situation in Hetauda Municipality. From the survey it was
found that the major percentage of the waste included organic waste that
could be composed. Various methods of reduction of the waste such as
reuse and recycling has been promoted in the municipality. However due
to the lack of infrastructures and the manpower, much needs to be done
for the effective solid waste management of the area.

GENERATION OF ENERGY FROM WASTE

We live in a throwaway society that accumulates vast quantities of waste every
day. While this comes with pressing challenges, there are also opportunities for
professionals including electrical engineers to process at least some of the waste to
produce much-needed renewable energy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2018 a total of

68 U.S. power plants generated around 14 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity from
29.5 million tons of combustible municipal solid waste (MSW). Biomass, which
comes from plants and animals and is a source of renewable energy, was
responsible for more than half (about 51%) of the electricity generated from waste.
It also accounted for about 64% of the weight of the MSW used. The rest of the
waste used was from other combustible materials including synthetic materials
made from petroleum and plastics. Glass and metal are generally not
noncombustible.
There are a variety of technologies for generating electricity from municipal solid
waste, but in the US the most common system involves mass burning of MSW in a
large incinerator that has a boiler that produces steam, and a generator that
produces electricity. Another entails processing MSW into fuel pellets for use in
smaller power plants.
Waste materials destined to be processed to generate electricity

Generating electricity in mass-burn WTE plants is remarkably straightforward and

follows seven basic steps:

The MSW is dumped out of garbage trucks into a large pit.

A crane with a giant claw attachment is used to grab the waste and dump it into a
combustion chamber.
The waste, which now becomes the fuel, starts to burn, releasing heat.
The heat that is released turns water in the boiler into high-pressure steam.
The steam turns the turbine generator’s blades and produces electricity.
The mass-burn plant incorporates an control system to prevent air pollution by
removing pollutants from the combustion gas before it is released through a
smoke-stack.
Ash is inevitably produced in the boiler and the air pollution control system, and
this has to be removed before another load of waste can be burned.
While the volumes burned as fuel in different plants vary, for every 100 pounds of
MSW produced in the US, potentially, more than 85 pounds could be burned to
generate electricity.

Of course, the USA isn’t the only country that uses waste-to-energy plants to
generate electricity from MSW. And in fact, when compared to a lot of other
countries, the percentage of MSW burned with energy recovery in the U.S. is
minimal. At least nine countries are named by the EIA as bigger producers of
electricity from municipal waste. In Japan and some European countries, for
instance, there are fewer energy resources and not much open space available for
landfills. So generating electricity from MSW is an obvious opportunity.

GENERATION OF ENERGY FROM WASTE

With world resources finite, and increasing public awareness of the harmful effects
of our ‘throwaway culture’, a move towards what’s known as a circular economy
seems a sensible option. In short, this means making products last longer, and
recovering materials or other benefits from them when they can’t be fixed.

Generating energy from waste – whether that’s electricity or heat – that can then
be used in homes and businesses is a logical part of this move towards circular
thinking.

How green is waste-to-energy?

It’s important to place the idea of generating energy from waste in its proper
context – and the waste hierarchy does this best. The waste hierarchy tool indicates
an order of preference for actions to reduce and manage waste.

It places energy generation (recovery) below reducing waste, re-use, and recycling
and composting, meaning it’s those options that should be considered first when
managing waste; but above waste disposal meaning that waste-to-energy is
preferable to landfill.
How truly ‘green’ waste-to-energy is depends on the efficiency of the plant turning
the waste into energy, and the proportion of the waste that is biodegradable. This
affects whether the approach is considered to be ‘recovery’ or simply ‘disposal’ of
waste.

There are number of ways of generating energy from waste. These include
combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, anaerobic digestion and landfill gas recovery.

Combustion: Burning up what’s left behind

First up, combustion. This is where heat produced by burning waste produces heat,
driving a turbine to generate electricity. This indirect approach to generation
currently has an efficiency of around 15-27%, albeit with a lot of potential for
improvements. Whether any approach to generating energy from waste can be
considered sustainable depends on the ‘net calorific value’ of the waste going into
the process. Where incineration of waste is concerned, that figure must be 7 MJ/kg,
meaning the likes of paper, plastics and textiles are best suited to the combustion
method of generating energy from waste.

Of course, combustion produces emissions – 250-600 kg CO2/tonne of waste

processed – but this is offset by the fact that fossil fuels don’t need to burned.
There are, however, other pollutants emitted from combustion in the form of flue
gas.

Gasification: waste’s a gas

Gasification, rather than being the business of driving turbines directly, is about the
production of gas from waste. Our everyday rubbish, consisting of product
packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, bottles, appliances and so on, is not
a fuel as much as the feed for chemical conversion at very high temperature. The
rubbish is combined with oxygen and/or steam to produce ‘syngas’ – synthesised
gas which can then be used to make numerous useful products, from transport fuels
to fertilisers or turned into electricity.

But a problem here is that gasification is often followed by combustion, leading to

some of the same emissions issues as combustion. The same issue can apply to
what happens after the pyrolysis of waste.

Gasification is also not a particularly efficient mechanism of producing energy, as

the pre-processing requires a lot of energy and the reactors need to be closed down
for regular cleaning.
Pyrolysis: no oxygen, no trouble?
Where pyrolysis is different from other methods listed so far is that decomposition
of various solid wastes takes place at high temperature, but without oxygen or in an
atmosphere of inert gases. This means the process requires lower temperatures, and
has lower emissions of some of the air pollutants associated with combustion.

It’s worth noting, however that Friends of the Earth doesn’t consider the energy
generated through either gasification or pyrolysis as truly ‘renewable’ due to the
fact that they release CO2 from both fossil fuel origins such as plastics and
synthetic textiles as well as biological materials.

Tackling organic matter

Anaerobic digestion can be used to generate energy from organic waste like food
and animal products. In an oxygen-free tank, this material is broken down to
biogas and fertiliser.

It’s an approach with big potential. If we treated 5.5 million tonnes of food waste
this way, we’d generate enough energy to serve around 164,000 households while
saving between 0.22 and 0.35 million tonnes of CO2, in comparison to
composting.

Extracting the biogas produced by biodegrading materials on landfill sites is

another way of getting useful energy from waste. Although it’s an approach that’s
in decline due to the reduction of the amount of organic matter going to landfill,
it’s making a notable contribution to UK energy supply: the source 3.04TWh of
green electricity in the last year, in fact.

Tackling the plastic problem

Plastic waste has risen to significant levels of public consciousness in recent years,
for its negative impact on habitats and species. In response, the UK Government’s
25-year Environment Plan pledges to eliminate all ‘avoidable’ plastic waste by the
end of 2042 – and it’s not alone in making such political commitments. Can waste-
to-energy step in here?
Converting plastic waste to energy certain makes sense from a chemical
perspective, given plastics come from the same origin as fossil fuels. We’ve
already looked at the two main techniques involved: pyrolysis, where plastic is
heated in the absence of oxygen, and gasification, where air or steam heats the
waste, creating gases that either produce petrol or diesel, or are burned to generate
electricity.

New techniques such as cold plasma pyrolysis, provide the potential to create fuels
such as hydrogen and methane, as well as useful chemicals for industry.

But there are barriers in the way of wider uptake of plastic-to-energy techniques.
Gasification of plastics requires significant investment, including advanced
controls and pre-treatment facilities. Also, developing plastic-recycling plants
presents a risk of limiting those facilities, when decision-makers may instinctively
opt for waste strategies where general waste is processed together, rather than
separating out different elements.

Novel approaches to waste management in the UK will surely rise in the coming
years. Recycling rates seem to be plateauing, with only minor increases seen.
While generating energy from waste has a lot of promise, we need to focus on
making products last longer, and when they really can’t be fixed, finding ways to
recycle and reuse them. Only when those options are exhausted should we turn to
waste-to-energy.
The UK is obliged under the revised EU Waste Framework Directive to apply the
waste hierarchy. This ranks waste management options in order of environmental
preference and the first priority is waste reduction.

Recovering energy from waste is only appropriate for waste that cannot be
prevented, reused or recycled with less greenhouse gas emitted.

Energy recovery can be a sustainable option for waste that would otherwise go to
landfill and create landfill methane emissions.
Conventional technologies
Direct combustion (incineration) of dry biomass
The heat generated by the following wastes can be used directly to warm homes
and buildings or to generate electricity using a steam turbine, or both, through
combined heat and power systems:

direct combustion (incineration) of dry biomass waste such as wood waste, straw
and poultry litter
the biomass part of municipal waste
some commercial and industrial wastes
some construction and demolition wastes
Where waste is combusted in a combined heat and power unit, it is possible to
produce both heat and power at greater efficiencies.

Combustion of waste-derived fuel

The methane produced from landfill (landfill gas) is a waste-derived fuel. It can be
used in the same way as for combustion plants or it can be injected into the
national gas grid. Waste derived fuel is also referred to as Solid Recovered Fuel
(SRF) or Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).

Anaerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a natural process in which micro-organisms break
down the organic matter found in wet biomass waste (such as sewage sludge,
animal manure and slurry and waste food) in the absence of oxygen, to produce
biogas (mainly a mixture of around 60% methane and 40% carbon dioxide) and
digestate (a nitrogen rich fertiliser).

The biogas can be burned directly in a gas boiler to produce heat or burnt in a
combined heat and power (CHP) unit to produce heat and electricity. Alternatively,
the biogas can be cleaned to remove the carbon dioxide and other substances, to
produce biomethane. This can be injected into the national gas grid to be used in
the same way as natural gas, or used as a vehicle fuel.

The National Non-food Crops Centre (NNFCC) runs the government’s Anaerobic
Digestion Portal - a gateway to information on anaerobic digestion, biogas and
digestate.

Advanced conversion technologies

A number of innovative advanced, high temperature processes are beginning to
emerge. These have the potential to be more efficient than conventional processes
and can offer a range of different types of energy from bio-based wastes, including
wood waste and municipal wastes.

The Low Carbon Innovation Co-ordination Group has recently published a

Technology Innovation Needs Assessment (TINA) on Bioenergy, including wastes,
which examine the potential for innovation in the bioenergy sector and the
potential economic benefit they can deliver for the UK.

Read about bioenergy innovation funding opportunities, including details on an

open call for EU proposals.

Gasification
Gasification is a type of advanced conversion that produces a combustible gas that
is a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide and methane. This gas
can be used directly to generate heat and electricity. Alternatively it can be
upgraded to an ultra clean gas called syngas. This can be used to manufacture
either biomethane, which can be injected into the national gas grid, or transport
fuels such as hydrogen, ethanol, synthetic diesel or jet fuel. The energy given off
can be harnessed to generate heat and power.

Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a type of advanced conversion that can be used to produce either a
combustible gas, oil or solid char (sometimes known as biocoal). In the future, it
will be possible to upgrade pyrolysis oil to produce petrol and diesel using oil
refining techniques.

The choice of technology for any project depends on the type of waste available,
local circumstances and finance.

More information on the different technologies is available on the NNFCC

website.

Environmental controls
All energy from waste plants must comply with regulations concerning
environmental protection, animal by-products, duty of care, health and safety,
waste handling and planning permission.

For more information on environmental regulations, see the Netregs website.

The Anaerobic Digestion Portal holds more regulatory information for anaerobic
digestion projects.

Obstacles to energy from waste

There are a number of challenges facing energy from waste projects, even for the
established technologies, and these need to be overcome for the sector to expand.
The outcome of the review of waste policies in England was published on 14 June
2011. The review looked at all aspects of waste policy and delivery in England to
ensure we are taking the necessary steps towards creating a ‘zero waste’ economy,
where resources are fully valued and nothing of value gets thrown away.

The review recognised the important part that energy from waste can play in
helping to meet renewable energy targets, diversifying supply, and providing
economic opportunities. It suggested that renewable electricity generated from
waste through combustion technologies could almost treble from the current
1.2TWh to between 3.1TWh and 3.6TWh by 2020.

It outlined a number of actions, which are aimed at overcoming barriers to

deployment to ensure we get the most energy out of genuinely residual waste.
Actions include:

improving communications and information on energy from waste technologies

exploring ways to help communities benefit from hosting energy from waste
infrastructure
supporting industry in developing supply chains for waste feedstocks
ensuring waste management legislation does not have unintended consequences on
the development of energy plants
Anaerobic digestion strategy and action plan
The Anaerobic digestion strategy and action plan was also published on 14 June
2011.
The strategy sets out a vision for AD, with an estimate of potential that could reach
between 3-5 TWh for heat and electricity by 2020.

The accompanying action plan is the result of the Department of Environment

Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department of Energy & Climate Change
(DECC) and other departments working closely with industry to identify the key
barriers to the development of AD and the actions that are needed to overcome
them. These include:

creation of a £10 million loan fund to develop new AD capacity in England

improving the dissemination of information, particularly on regulatory controls
guidance on the costs and benefits of AD, including best practice projects
tackling specific barriers, such as the cost and complexity of connection to the gas
grid
developing skills and training for AD operators
building markets for digestate
An update on progress on detailed actions was published in July 2012 and we will
continue to work with industry to implement the agreed actions.

Recommendation
Through the study conducted in the Hetauda Municipality, the status of
solid waste management was analysed and the following
recommendations are made to the best of
authors’ knowledge:
Ÿ Frequency of the waste collection practice should be increased;
Ÿ Throwing waste in a nearby open field should be discouraged;
Ÿ Since many wards are at a little far distance from the municipal office,
the SWM authority can hand the responsibility to the ward offices and
they can manage the household waste of respective wards;
Ÿ If possible, each ward could have a community composting facilities;
else at least sufficient number of composting plant could be established;
Ÿ Each ward should be provided with waste collection container and a
certain transporting/disposal mechanism;
Ÿ Educating people and encouraging them to manage the organic waste
at household level;
Ÿ Increase of helping hand is needed to minimise waste;
Ÿ Personnel for SWM service must be increased and it would more
beneficial if local people could be hired in each ward.Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the team members of
Solid Waste Management Technical Support Center (SWMTSC) for
their guidance and support throughout this study. Besides, we would like
to thank officials from the Hetauda Municipality Office for providing
valuable information and suggestions.