지속가능성 확보를 위한 자원순환 성능 및 처리기반 적정성 평가 연구 = Evaluation of Resource Circulation Performance and Waste Treatment System Suitability for Sustainable Waste Management

국문 초록 (Abstract)

Ⅰ. 서론
□ 연구의 필요성 및 목적
ㅇ 우리나라의 폐기물 발생량은 지속적 증가 추세로, 2017년 기준 총 폐기물 발생량은 43만 톤/일이며, 1인당 1일 생활계폐기물 발생량이 1.01kg으로 2012년 0.95kg 대비 증가 0.06kg 증가하였음
ㅇ 국내 폐기물 발생전망1)에 따르면 2017년 43만 톤/일으로부터 2027년 48만 9,000톤/일로 증가될 것으로 분석되고 있으나 그에 대한 적정처리 계획이 부재함
ㅇ 본 연구는 불법투기 폐기물, 방치폐기물, 불법수출 폐기물 등 국내외 이슈에 대응하기 위한 국내 자원순환 성능 및 처리기반 적정성의 평가기법을 개발함
ㅇ 지속가능한 폐기물 관리 전략을 마련하고 법제도적 개선(안)을 제안하였음
□ 연구의 범위 및 내용
ㅇ 폐기물 발생 및 불법폐기물 관련 정책 분석과 GIS 기반 자원순환 시스템 평가기법 개발을 통해 시사점을 도출하고 관련 법제도적 개선(안)을 마련하고자 하였음
- 폐기물 발생 및 불법폐기물 관련 정책추진 현황 분석 및 적정처리 가능성 검토
- 국내외 폐기물 처리시스템의 지속가능성 평가 사례 분석
- 처리기반 적정성 평가를 위한 국내 현황 및 시설 등 기초자료 분석
- 폐기물 종류(생활폐기물, 사업장폐기물)별 발생량, 처리방법별 처리용량(공공시설, 민간시설)과 실제 처리량 분석
- 폐기물 발생 현황 및 처리시설 반입폐기물 성상 및 용량 등 DB 구축 방안 마련
- 폐기물 종류별 현재 시설의 처리능력 수준과 향후 처리능력 전망
- 폐기물 처리시설별 자원순환 시스템 평가 및 성능평가 방법론 개발
- 연간 발생 폐기물 및 미처리 불법폐기물의 처리 계획에 따른 적정 처리기반 구축 방안 제시
Ⅱ. 폐기물 발생 및 부적정 처리 사례 분석
1. 국내 폐기물 발생 현황
□ 국내 폐기물 현황
ㅇ 2018년을 기준으로 국내 총 폐기물 발생량은 43만 톤/일로, 전년 대비 약 3.9% 증가하였으며, 종류별 비율은 건설폐기물 48.1%, 사업장배출시설계폐기물 38.9%, 생활계폐기물 13.0%를 차지하고 있음
ㅇ 생활계폐기물 1일 발생량 중 45.0%(2만 5,236톤/일)가 인구 밀집 지역인 경기, 서울, 부산 지역에서 발생하였으며, 사업장배출시설계폐기물 1일 발생량 중 51.8%(8만 6,816톤/일)가 충남, 전남, 경북 순의 3개 지역에서 발생하였고, 건설폐기물 1일 발생량 중 47.8%(9만 8,944톤/일)가 경기, 서울, 경남 순의 3개 지역에서 발생함
□ 국내 폐기물 처리시설 현황
ㅇ 소각시설 수는 지방자치단체 178개소, 자가처리업체 136개소, 최종처분업체 68개소로 총 382개소이며, 시설용량은 지방자치단체 1만 7,124톤/일, 자가처리업체 6,523톤/일, 최종처분업체 8,315톤/일로 지방자치단체의 비중이 가장 큼
ㅇ 매립시설 수는 지방자치단체 218개소, 자가처리업체 27개소, 최종처분업체 30개소로 총 275개소이며, 총 매립용량은 지방자치단체 48,022만m3, 자가처리업체 1만 3,207만m3, 최종처분업체 4,629만m3이며 잔여 매립 비율은 지방자치단체 81.6%, 자가처리업체 13.6%, 최종처분업체 4.8%로 지방자치단체가 매립용량 및 잔여 매립 비율이 가장 높음
□ 국내 불법 및 부적정 처리 관련 사례 검토
ㅇ 부적정하게 처리된 폐기물은 대부분 생활폐기물이었으며, 개인 업체가 주체인 경우 대부분 경제적 이익을 이유로 발생하였고, 지방자치단체 단위에서는 주로 업무 소홀 및 책임 회피 등이 이유로 파악되었음
□ 일본 불법폐기물 현황 및 대책 조사
ㅇ 불법투기의 양 및 건수 모두 전반적으로 꾸준히 감소해 2016년 2만 7,338톤, 131건까지 감소하였으며, 2015년 16만 5,550톤, 2018년 15만 6,826톤이 신규로 발생했는데 이는 유가하락, 쓰레기 대란 등 국내 발생 원인과 유사하나 폐플라스틱류가 감소한 것에서 차이를 보임
Ⅲ. 폐기물 처리시스템의 지속가능성 평가 및 정보 구축 사례 분석
1. 폐기물 처리시스템의 지속가능성 평가 관련 사례 분석
□ 국외 폐기물 지속가능성 평가 사례 조사
ㅇ 일본의 폐기물 처리시스템 지속가능성 평가기법 및 개선전략연구, EU의 지속가능 자원순환 전략 사례인 Waste to Energy, Best Environmental Management Practice(BEMP) for the Waste Management Sector, Interreg Europe COCOON의 지속가능한 매립지 관리사례, Cedalion & Orion tool을 활용한 지속 가능 정책결정 지원도구 등에 대한 분석을 수행하였음
2. 폐기물 처리자료 및 처리정보 시스템 구축 관련 사례 분석
□ 국내외 폐기물 처리시스템 구축 사례 조사
ㅇ 일본의 폐기물 광역이동 대책 및 순환이용량 실태 조사 보고서, 폐기물 처리시스템 적정성 평가 및 예측을 위한 Waste atlas, What a waste 2.0 시스템을 분석하였음
ㅇ 국내 한국국토정보공사의 수거체계 최적화를 위한 건물단위 생활폐기물 배출량 추정(2015)보고서, 자원순환 종합 정보시스템(순환자원정보센터), 부산자원순환협력센터 등의 사례를 조사하여 분석 결과를 수록하였음
Ⅳ. 자원순환 성능 및 처리기반 적정성 평가
1. 폐기물 발생 현황 및 처리시설 등 기초자료 분석
□ 폐기물 발생 현황 및 처리시설 여유용량, 에너지 생산량 분석
ㅇ 전국 17개 시도 폐기물 담당자를 통해 취합한 폐기물 처리시설 운영 현황 자료, 2018 전국 폐기물 발생 및 처리 현황 자료, 올바로 자료 등을 활용함
ㅇ 매립시설의 경우, 지방자치단체, 자가처리, 민간시설로 구분하여 정리하였으며, 소각 시설은 지방자치단체, 자가처리(사업장폐기물), 자가처리(생활폐기물), 민간시설(사업장폐기물)로 구분, 재활용의 경우는 지방자치단체에서 운영 중인 선별장, 가연성 폐기물, 바이오가스화시설, 음식물자원화시설로 구분하여 정리하였음
ㅇ 전체 폐기물 발생량은 1억 5,619만 톤으로, 각각 매립 1,150만 톤(7.3%), 소각 880만톤(5.6%), 재활용이 1억 3,687만 톤(87.1%)을 차지하고 있으며, 처리량은 매립이 1,213만 톤, 소각이 815만 톤으로, 매립은 발생량을 62만 톤 초과하였음
ㅇ 수도권의 경우, 인천 수도권 매립지의 매립용량으로 인해 서울과 경기 지역의 매립 발생량을 대부분 수용하고 있음에도 약 26만여 톤의 용량 부족이 확인되었으며, 수도권 매립지의 종료연한(2025년) 도래에 따라 향후 폐기물 발생량 및 증가량을 고려한 시설 확충이 필요할 것으로 보임
ㅇ 에너지 생산량은 원단위를 기준으로 매립과 재활용 시설(유기성폐기물 바이오가스화 시설, 음식물자원화시설)이 높고 소각시설은 낮음(매립의 경우, 평균 101.4Gcal/톤, 소각은 1.1Gcal/톤, 재활용은 81.9Gcal/톤)
ㅇ 생활폐기물 성상은 85.6%가 가연성, 14.3%가 불연성이며, 사업장생활계폐기물은 65.6%가 가연성, 34.4%가 불연성 폐기물로 구성되어 있음
2. 폐기물 처리 흐름 분석 및 데이터베이스 구성(안)
□ 국내 폐기물 처리 흐름
ㅇ 수도권에서 충청권 이동량이 514만 톤으로 가장 많았으며, 강원권에서 호남권 이동량이 약 3만 톤으로 가장 적음
ㅇ 타 지역으로 이동하여 처리되는 폐기물량은 수도권이 833만 톤으로 가장 많고 강원권이 138만 톤으로 가장 적었지만, 전체 이동량과 대조하여 볼 때 강원권(16.1%), 충청권(15.1%), 수도권(12.4%), 영남권(11.1%), 호남권(8.4%) 순으로 비율이 높음
□ 폐기물 처리기반 데이터베이스 구성(안)
ㅇ 전체 폐기물 처리시설 7,683개소 중 지방자치단체 시설 913개소(매립 218, 소각 178, 재활용선별 196, 음식물자원화 86, 가연성연료화 15, 유기성에너지화 27개소), 자가처리시설 326개소(매립 27, 소각 136개소), 민간시설 157개소(매립 30, 소각 68, 중간처분59개소)를 시각화함
ㅇ GIS 기반 매립·소각 처리시설 정보 및 매립·소각, 재활용 처리 흐름(Chord Diagram)을 https://wastemap.shinyapps.io/WasteMapShiny에 구현하여 나타내었음
Ⅴ. 폐기물 처리능력 전망 및 시나리오에 따른 적정 용량 분석
1. 폐기물 향후 발생량 및 처리능력 전망
□ 국내 폐기물 발생량 변화 예측
ㅇ 2009년부터 2018년간 폐기물 발생량 자료에 기반하여 2050년까지의 폐기물 발생량 전망치를 계산한 결과 2050년에는 2018년(43만 810톤/일) 대비 65.83%가 증가한 71만 4,412톤/일이 예상됨
ㅇ 매립폐기물의 경우 2050년까지 -80.34% 감소하였고(31,650톤/일 → 6,222톤/일), 소각의 경우 2050년까지 89.12% 증가(2만 4,153톤/년 → 4만 5,678톤/년), 재활용폐기물은 2050년까지 76.67% 증가(37만 5,007톤/년 → 66만 2,512톤/년)로 예상
ㅇ 현재 수준의 폐기물 관리 정책 유지 시, 생활폐기물 및 사업장생활폐기물은 2050년까지 재활용 및 소각량이 각각 평균 46.7% 증가하고, 매립량은 평균 50.6% 감소할 것으로 전망됨
ㅇ 생활폐기물의 경우 2030년 직매립 금지 정책 적용 시, 이에 따른 효과가 가장 두드러지게 확인되어 매립/소각량의 차이가 74만 톤으로 전망됨
2. 자원순환 대전환 정책에 따른 시나리오 설정
□ 시나리오에 따른 처리전망 분석 결과
ㅇ 향후 폐기물 종류별 발생량 전망을 시나리오를 설정하여 분석하였으며, ① 현재 폐기물 처리비율 유지, ② 『제1차 자원순환기본계획』에 따른 정책적 매립저감 노력 수행,
③ 2030년 직매립 금지 정책추진으로 구분하여 예측하였음
ㅇ 생활폐기물의 경우, 『제1차 자원순환기본계획』 추진(시나리오 2) 적용 시, 현재 처리비율(시나리오 1) 대비 재활용량과 매립량의 감소와 소각량의 증가경향이 두드러지며, 2030년 직매립 금지에 따라 2043년까지 소각과 매립의 한시적 증감이 확인됨
ㅇ 사업장생활계폐기물의 경우, 현재 처리비율(시나리오 1) 대비 『제1차 자원순환기본 계획』 추진(시나리오 2)에 따른 전망은 재활용량과 소각량의 점진적 증가와 매립량의 감소가 두드러지나, 2030년 직매립 금지에도 폐기물 내에 불연성분이 34.4%를 차지하고 있어 매립량 감소에 한계를 보임
ㅇ 사업장배출시설계폐기물의 경우, 『제1차 자원순환기본계획』 추진(시나리오 2) 적용시, 현재 처리비율(시나리오 1) 대비 재활용량의 증가와 소각량의 감소, 매립량의 감소 경향이 확인됨
ㅇ 건설폐기물의 경우, 변화가 미미하여 정책적용 효과가 두드러지지 않음
3. 폐기물 발생량 예측에 따른 시설 적정 용량 분석
□ 폐기물 처리시설 시설용량 대비 폐기물 발생량 전망
ㅇ 소각시설의 처리용량은 발생량 대비 약 62만 톤이 부족하며 매립의 경우는 약 65만톤의 여유용량이 있음
ㅇ 소각용량은 2030년에 약 345만 톤, 2040년에는 598만 톤, 2050년에는 851만톤의 용량이 필요하며(당해년도, 연간 누적 아님), 매립의 경우는 발생량이 지속적으로 감소하여 2030년 795만 톤, 2040년 485만 톤, 2050년 227만 톤의 폐기물이 발생할 것으로 전망됨
□ 폐기물 증가에 따른 처리시설 적정 용량 및 2030년 직매립 금지 정책추진에 따른 추가 확보 적정 용량
ㅇ (소각) 총 처리용량은 815만 7,783톤/년이며, 2018년 기준 881만 6,013톤이 발생하여 약 65만 톤의 물량을 초과 처리하였으며, 2030년 직매립 금지 정책의 적용 시, 2030년에만 약 87.7만 톤이 증가하고 연간 누적치를 반영할 경우 약 174만 톤이 증가할 것으로 전망됨
ㅇ 현재대로 소각을 진행할 경우(소각시설 부족용량과 폐기물 발생 증가량을 연간 누적 산정), 2030년까지 필요한 소각용량은 775만 톤이며(약 1.70배), 2040년에는 1,043만 톤(약 2.30배), 2050년에는 1,311만 톤(약 2.89배)의 추가 소각용량이 필요할 것으로 전망됨
ㅇ 2030년 직매립 금지정책을 시행할 경우 2030년까지 필요한 소각용량은 849만 톤이며(약 1.87배), 2040년에는 1,590만 톤(약 3.50배), 2050년에는 1,712만 톤(약 3.77배)의 추가 소각용량이 필요할 것으로 전망됨
ㅇ (매립) 총 매립 잔여용량은 약 2억 6,441만 1,979m3로, 2018년 기준 1,213만 톤, 9,518,057m3를 매립하였음
ㅇ 현재 추세대로 매립할 경우 2030년에는 매립 잔여용량이 931만 7,159톤/년, 2036년에는 만적 예정임
ㅇ 2030년 직매립 금지정책을 시행할 경우 매립량이 점차 저감되므로 2040년에 521만 3,269톤/년의 매립량이 감소하여 약 3.5년만큼의 매립지 만적기한 연장이 전망됨
Ⅵ. 자원순환 시스템 및 성능평가 방법론 개발
1. 시스템 개발을 위한 이해관계자 포럼 및 의견조사
ㅇ 총 5회에 걸친 정부, 지방자치단체, 산업계, 학계 전문가 등 포럼과 의견조사를 진행함
2. 시스템 평가 및 성능평가 방법론 개발
□ 자원순환 시스템 평가 및 성능평가 방법론 개발
ㅇ 지속가능성은 ‘환경효율성(환경/경제)’, ‘적정비용(경제/사회)’, ‘사회적 수용성(사회/환경)’ 등 6가지 측면을 고려한 3가지 평가요소 설정
ㅇ 자원순환 시스템을 구축함으로써 현존하는 자원순환시설의 용량 증설 또는 신규 시설의 설치에 활용이 가능
ㅇ 시설 정보, 위치 등 기초자료 분석을 통해 폐기물의 처리 흐름을 작성하고 비용효과 등을 포함하는 기초모형을 도출 가능
ㅇ 입력자료 등의 시점을 기준으로 최적화된 폐기물 처리 흐름을 반영하고 있으며, 의사결정자로 하여금 발생지 처리, 인근 시설에 일부 처리량 위탁 등 결정을 보조
Ⅶ. 결론 및 제언
1. 정책 제언
ㅇ 국민 및 업계의 의식 향상을 통해 폐기물 감량과 적정처리에 대한 이해를 높이고 적극적 참여 유도
ㅇ 수집업체와의 계약 의존 현상을 배제하고, 폐기물의 최종 처분까지 의무적으로 관리하도록 하여 폐기물 처리 흐름에 투명성을 확보
ㅇ 폐기물 처리시설의 중장기적 확충계획과 국비보조 비율 제고 등 국가 재정 확대 필요
ㅇ 지속가능한 폐기물 처리 우수사업자들을 육성해 업계의 수준 제고 필요
ㅇ 공공폐자원관리시설법을 통해 순환이용 과정에 있는 폐기물 및 그 과정에서 배출된 폐기물을 모두 처리할 수 있도록 별도로 범주를 설정
ㅇ 생활폐기물 직매립을 금지하고, 사업장폐기물은 단계적으로 가연성 폐기물의 직매립을 금지하며, 소각 등 중간처리 후 법에서 명시하는 기준 충족 시 매립 가능
ㅇ 폐기물을 발생지에서 처리하기 위한 기반 확충이 필요하며, 국가 및 지방자치단체의 책무 등에 관하여 관할 지역내 발생 폐기물에 대해서는 지역내 처리를 유도할 수 있는 법 개정이 필요
ㅇ 자원순환 시스템의 인프라 구축 및 시스템, 클라우드, 빅데이터, 제도, 플랫폼 등을 통해 데이터 기반의 공간분석 결과 활용, 사회변화 및 환경변화를 반영 및 관리, 민관학연 협업 체계 구축, 시스템을 통한 자료 관리 등 제안

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ⅰ. Introduction
□ Research Background and Objective
ㅇ The amount of waste generated in Korea has been consistently increasing. As of 2017, the total amount of waste generated was 43,000 tons/day, and the amount of municipal waste per capita increased 0.06 kg to 1.01 kg from 0.95kg in 2012.
ㅇ Domestic waste generation is expected to increase from 430,000 tons/day in 2017 to 489,000 tons/day in 2027, however, there lacks the plan to handle the surplus waste properly.
ㅇ This study develops a method for evaluating the performance of resource circulation in South Korea and the suitability of treatment infrastructure in response to domestic and global issues related to waste, such as illegal dumping, neglected waste, and illegal exports of waste.
ㅇ This study proposes sustainable waste management strategies and ways to improve the legal and institutional basis for waste treatment.
□ Research Scope and Content
ㅇ Policies related to waste generation and illegal waste are analyzed and a GIS-based approach for evaluating national resource circulation is developed to derive implications and prepare a proposal for improving the legal and institutional basis for waste management.
- Analyzes current policies related to waste generation and illegal waste and review of adequate waste treatment methods
- Analyzes domestic and overseas evaluations of the sustainability of waste treatment systems
- Analyzes basic data on domestic waste generation and waste treatment facilities, etc. for the evaluation of the suitability of waste treatment system
- Analyzes the amount of waste generation by type (municipal waste, industrial waste), treatment capacity by method (public and private facilities) and actual amount of waste treated
- Proposes a plan establishing a database on waste-related information, such as the waste generation status and the properties and amount of the waste sent to treatment facilities
- Analyzes the present and future treatment capacities of existing facilities by waste type
- Develops methods for evaluating the resource circulation system and performance of individual waste treatment facilities
- Suggests a proposal for building a suitable waste treatment system based on the annual waste management plan (including plan to handle untreated illegal waste)
Ⅱ. Case Studies on Waste Generation and Unsuitable Waste Treatment
1. Waste generation in South Korea
□ Status of Waste Generation in South Korea
ㅇ As of 2018, the total amount of waste generation in South Korea reached 430,000 tons/day, which is an increase of about 3.9% year-on-year. By type, construction waste accounted for 13.0%, while industrial waste took up 38.9% and municipal waste, 13.0%.
ㅇ Approximately 45.0% of the municipal waste (25,236 tons/day) was generated in Gyeonggi, Seoul, and Busan, which are densely populated areas, and 51.8% (86,816 tons/day) of industrial waste was generated in Chungnam, Jeonnam, and Gyeongbuk regions (in the order of waste generation amount). In terms of construction waste, 47.8% (98,944 tons/day) was generated in Gyeonggi, Seoul, and Gyeongnam (in the order of waste generation amount).
□ Current Status of Waste Treatment Facilities in South Korea
ㅇ Incineration facilities: There are a total of 382 facilities, consisting of 178 facilities operated by local governments, 136 self-collecting and treating companies, and 68 final disposal companies. Their capacities are 17,124 tons/day for facilities operated by local governments, 6,523 tons/day for self-treatment companies, and 8,315 tons/day for final disposal companies. The treatment capacity of facilities managed by local governments make up the majority share.
ㅇ Landfills: There are a total of 275 landfills, consisting of 218 sites managed by local governments, 27 sites managed by self-collecting and treating companies, and 30 sites managed by final disposal companies. Their capacities are 48.022 million tons for landfills managed by local governments, 13.207 million tons for landfills managed by self-treatment companies, and 4.629 million tons for landfills managed by final disposal companies. Their remaining capacity (in terms of ratio) is 81.6% for local government landfills, 13.6% for self-treatment landfills, and 4.8% for final disposal landfills. The landfills managed by local governments have the highest capacity overall as well as remaining.
□ Cases of Illegal Dumping and Inappropriate Waste Treatment in South Korea
ㅇ Most unsuitably-treated wastes were municipal wastes. In the cases where waste was treated by private companies, the waste was treated unsuitably mostly due to considerations of economic profit. In the cases where the local government was responsible for waste treatment, unsuitable waste treatment occurred mainly due to negligence and irresponsible behavior.
□ Status of Illegal waste and Government Measures in Japan
ㅇ Both the amount and number of illegal dumping steadily declined to 27,338 tons and 131 cases in 2016. The amounts of illegally dumped waste in 2015 and 2018 were 165,550 tons and 156,826 tons, respectively. In both years, illegal dumping was attributed to falling oil prices and the so-called ‘garbage fiasco’ due to problems in waste collection. The causes of illegal dumping in South Korea are also similar, but the difference is that there was a decrease in waste plastics.
Ⅲ. Case Study on Waste Treatment System Sustainability Evaluations and Database Construction
1. Case Studies on Waste Treatment System Sustainability Evaluations
□ Waste Treatment Sustainability Evaluations Conducted Overseas
ㅇ Research was conducted on Japan’s sustainability evaluation and improvement strategies for the waste treatment system, the EU’s sustainable resource recycling strategies such as Waste to Energy, Best Environmental Management Practice (BEMP) for the Waste Management Sector, and sustainable landfill management of Interreg Europe COCOON, and the Cedalion & Orion decision-making tool for sustainability policy, etc.
2. Case Study related to Waste Treatment Data and Information System Construction
□ Case Study on Waste Treatment System Construction in South Korea and Abroad
ㅇ Japan’s case: The reports on governmental measures for cross-regional waste transportation and resource recycling rate and the Waste atlas, What a waste 2.0 system for evaluating and predicting the suitability of the waste treatment system
ㅇ Domestic cases: The Land and Geospatial Informatrix Corporation (LX)’s “Estimation of Municipal Waste Emissions by Building for the Optimization of Waste Collection System” (2015), the Resource Circulation Information System (Recyclable Resources Information Center), and Busan Resource Recycling Cooperation Center were researched and analyzed.
Ⅳ. Resource Circulation Performance and Waste Treatment System Suitability Evaluation
1. Analysis of Basic Data (e.g., Information on Waste Generation Status and Waste Treatment Facilities)
□ Analysis of Waste Generation Status, Available Waste Treatment Capacity at Facilities, and Energy Production
ㅇ Data on the status of waste treatment operations at facilities compiled through waste management managers in 17 cities and provinces nationwide, the 2018 data on the current status of waste generation and treatment, and data from the ‘Allbaro’ system were utilized
ㅇ In the case of landfills, the sites were divided into those managed by the local governments, self-collecting and treating companies, and private facilities. Incineration facilities are divided into those operated by local governments, self-collecting and treating companies (industrial waste), self-collecting and treating companies (municipal waste), and private facilities (industrial waste). Recycling waste was categorized into sorting facilities operated by local governments, combustible waste, biogasification facilities, and food waste-to-resource facilities.
ㅇ A total of 156.19 million tons of waste were generated. The waste was divided into 11.5 million tons (7.3%) for landfills, 8.8 million tons (5.6%) for incineration facilities, 136.87 million tons (87.1%) for recycling. Of this waste, 12.13 million tons were sent to landfills and 8.15 million tons were incinerated. Thus, the amount of waste sent to landfills exceeded the amount of waste for landfilling by 620,000 tons.
ㅇ In the case of the Seoul Metropolitan Area, Incheon Metropolitan Landfill received most of the waste designated for landfilling which are generated in Seoul and Gyeonggi areas, but it faced a shortage in capacity amounting to about 260,000 tons. There is a need to expand the landfill based on the projected amount and increase of waste generation, considering the impending end of the metropolitan landfill’s lifecycle (scheduled to end in 2025).
ㅇ Energy production, in terms of economic value (Korean won), was highest at landfills and recycling facilities (organic waste biogasification facilities, food waste-to-resource facilities) and low at incineration facilities (average energy production amounts were 101.4 Gcal/ton at landfills, 1.1 Gcal/ton at incineration facilities, 81.9 Gcal/ton at recycling facilities).
ㅇ The characterization of waste by type found that municipal waste was 85.6% combustible and 14.3% incombustible, and industrial waste was 65.6% combustible and 34.4% incombustible.
2. Waste Treatment Flow Analysis and Database Construction (draft)
□ Domestic Waste Treatment Flow
ㅇ Waste transported from the Seoul Metropolitan Area to the Chungcheong region was the highest in volume at 5.14 million tons, while that from the Gangwon region to the Honam region was the least at about 30,000 tons.
ㅇ The Seoul Metropolitan Area transported the largest amount of waste to other regions for treatment (8.33 million tons), while the Gangwon region sent out the least amount of waste to other regions (1.38 million tons). However, when looking at the numbers in terms of the ratio against the total amount of waste that is transported, Gangwon region showed the highest ratio (12.4%), followed by Chungcheong region (15.1%), Seoul Metropolitan Area (12.4%), Yeongnam region (11.1%), and Honam region (8.4%).
□ Composition of the Waste Treatment System Database (draft)
ㅇ A visual presentation (https://wastemap.shinyapps.io/WasteMapShiny) was provided of 913 local government facilities (218 landfills, 178 incineration facilities, 196 recycling and sorting facilities, 86 food waste-to-resource facilities, 15 combustible waste-to-fuel facilities, 27 biogasification facilities), 326 self-collecting and treating companies facilities (27 landfills, 136 incineration facilities), and 157 private facilities (30 landfills, 68 incineration facilities, 59 intermediate disposal facilities) out of the 7,683 waste treatment facilities in total.
Ⅴ. Waste Treatment Capacity Projection and Capacity Requirement By Scenario
1. Future Waste Generation and Treatment Capacity Projection
□ Projection of Domestic Waste Generation Trends
ㅇ Waste generation was projected up to 2050 based on the waste generation data from 2009 to 2018, which showed that in 2050, about 714,412 tons/day of waste will be generated, which is an increase of 65.83% from 2018 (430,810 tons/day).
ㅇ Waste to landfills will be -80.34% (31,650 tons/day → 6,222 tons/day), incineration will increase 89.12% (24,153 tons/year → 45,678 tons/year), and recycled waste will increase by 76.67% (375,007 tons/year → 662,512 tons/year) by 2050.
ㅇ If waste management policies are maintained at the current level, the amount of recycling and incineration of municipal and industrial waste is expected to increase by an average of 46.7% and waste sent to landfills to drop by an average of 50.6% by 2050.
ㅇ The implementation of the prohibition on direct landfilling in 2030 will bring the most noticeable effect in municipal waste trends, bringing an estimated difference of 740,000 tons in the volume of waste that is landfilled/incinerated.
2. Scenarios based on the Huge Transition to Resource Circulation Society Policy
□ Analysis of Treatment Projections by Scenario
ㅇ The projection of waste generation by waste type was analyzed based on the following scenarios: ① when waste treatment ratio is maintained at current levels, ② if policy-wise efforts are made to reduce the waste sent to landfills in matching with the Basic Plan for Resource Circulation, and ③ if the prohibition of direct landfilling is implemented in 2030.
ㅇ In the case of municipal waste, the decrease in the amount of recycled and landfilled and increase in the amount of incinerated waste is most significant under Scenario 2 when compared against the current treatment ratios (Scenario 1). The prohibition of direct landfilling in 2030 will bring a temporary increase in incineration and decrease in landfilling up to 2043.
ㅇ In the case of industrial municipal waste, Scenario 2 will bring a gradual increase in the amount of recycled and incinerated waste and a decrease in the amount of landfilled waste compared to the current treatment ratios (Scenario 1). However, the prohibition on direct landfilling in 2030 will have limited reduction effect in the amount of landfilled waste since 34.4% of industrial waste are incombustible.
ㅇ In the case of industrial waste, Scenario 2 will bring an increase in the amount of recycled and decreases the amount of incinerated and landfilled waste compared to the current treatment ratios (Scenario 1).
ㅇ In the case of construction waste, little change was found by scenario, which shows that the policies are not effective for this type of waste.
3. Analysis of Available Capacity at Facilities based on Waste Generation Projections
□ Projection of Waste Generation Against Waste Treatment Facility Capacities
ㅇ The operational capacity of incineration facilities is about 620,000 tons less than the amount of waste generated, and in the case of landfill, there is about 650,000 tons of spare capacity.
ㅇ It is projected that there will require incineration capacities of about 3.45 million tons in 2030, 5.98 million tons in 2040, and 8.51 million tons in 2050 (at each year, not accumulative). In the case of landfills, the amount of waste will continue to decrease to 7.95 million tons in 2030, 4.85 million tons in 2040, and 2.27 million tons in 2050.
□ Suitable Treatment Capacities by Facility based on Increase Waste Generation and Additional Capacity Required When Implementing the Prohibition of Direct Landfilling in 2030
ㅇ (Incineration) The total treatment capacity is 8,157,783 tons/year, and as of 2018, 8,816,013 tons of waste were incinerated, thus exceeding by approx. 650,000 tons. If the prohibition on direct landfilling is applied in 2030, the waste for incineration is projected to increase by 877,000 tons in 2030 alone. Accumulatively, it is projected that the waste for incineration will increase by around 1.74 million tons.
ㅇ If incineration is carried out at the current level (calculating the surplus waste and increase in waste generation accumulatively by year), the required incineration capacity to be secured by 2030 will be 7.75 million tons (about 1.70 times the current level); and additional incineration capacity amounting to 10.43 million tons (about 2.30 times) will be required by 2040 and 13.11 million tons (about 2.89 times) by 2050.
ㅇ If the prohibition on direct landfilling is implemented in 2030, the required incineration capacity to be secured by 2030 will be 8.49 million tons (about 1.87 times), and additional incineration capacity amounting to 15.9 million tons (about 3.50 times) will be required by 2040 and 17.12 million tons (about 3.77 times) by 2050.
ㅇ (Landfill) The total remaining landfill capacity is about 264,411,979㎥, and as of 2018, 12.13 million tons of waste has been landfilled (9,518,057㎥).
ㅇ If landfilling is carried out at the current level, the remaining landfill capacity in 2030 is projected to be 9,317,159 tons/year, and all landfills will have reached their maximum capacity by 2036.
ㅇ If the prohibition on direct landfilling is implemented in 2030, the amount of waste that is sent to landfills will gradually decrease. It is projected that the amount will decrease by 5,213,269 tons/year in 2040 to extend the lifecycle of landfills by about 3.5 years.
Ⅵ. Resource Circulation System and Performance Evaluation Methodology
1. Stakeholder Forum and Opinion Survey for System Development
ㅇ A total of five forums and opinion surveys were conducted on central and local government officials, members of the industry, and academic experts.
2. Development of Methodology for System Evaluation and Performance Evaluation
□ Development of Methodology for Resource Circulation System and Performance
ㅇ The sustainability evaluation was based on three factors that consider six dimensions: “environmental efficiency (environmental/economic dimensions)”, “appropriate cost (economic/social dimensions)”, and “social acceptance (social/environmental dimensions)”
ㅇ Establishes a resource circulation system which can be used for expanding the capacity of existing resource circulation facilities or installing new facilities.
ㅇ Enables the draw up of waste treatment flow based on an analysis of basic data (treatment facilities and their location, etc) and derive a basic model including cost benefits.
ㅇ Waste treatment flow is optimized based on the time of data input, etc., so as to assist decision makers in making decisions on issues such as whether to treat the waste at the place of origin or to consign some of the waste to nearby facilities.
Ⅶ. Conclusion and Suggestions
1. Policy Suggestion
ㅇ Enhance the public and industry’s awareness of the need for waste reduction and suitable disposal practices and encourage active participation
ㅇ Realize transparent waste treatment flow by avoiding dependence on existing contractual relationships with waste collectors and enforcing the obligatory management of waste up to their final disposal
ㅇ Need for a mid to long-term plan for expanding waste treatment facilities
ㅇ Need to upgrade the industry by fostering sustainable waste treatment companies
ㅇ Set separate categories for all types of wastes, including the waste generated during the treatment and reuse process, through the Special Act on the Installation, Operation and Resident Supports of Public Waste Resource Management Facility
ㅇ Prohibit direct landfill of combustible municipal waste, and prohibit direct landfill of combustible industrial waste from 2040. Only allow waste that has undergone intermediate treatment (such as incineration) and meets the legally-specified standards to be taken to landfills
ㅇ Establish infrastructure for a resource circulation system; utilize data-based spatial analysis based on existing systems, cloud computing, big data, institutional schemes, and platform, etc.; reflect and manage social and environmental changes; establish a system for public-private-academia collaborations; and manage data through advanced systems, etc.
2. Academic Applications
ㅇ Provides analysis of suitable waste treatment based on material flow and data on resource circulation
ㅇ Provides basic data for efficiency evaluation, such as information on the domestic waste treatment system and its operation
ㅇ Enables evaluation of the resource circulation system and waste treatment performance by waste treatment facility at the national level
3. Policy Applications
ㅇ (Environmental dimension) Helps enhance the sustainability of waste treatment based on evaluations of resource circulation performance and waste treatment system suitability by treatment facility and region
ㅇ (Economic dimension) Helps save central and local government budgets by promoting joint/cross-use of facilities and reducing the inefficient construction of new facilities
ㅇ (Social dimension) Helps reduce civil complaints and conflict factors by enabling efficient waste management and minimization of waste treatment facility construction and operation in the region