폐기물처리시설 운영현황 분석을 통한 운영 적정성 평가연구 = A study on the evaluation of operational suitability through the analysis of operation status of waste treatment facilities

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Abstract

A Study on the Evaluation of Operational Suitability through the Analysis of Operation Status of Waste Treatment Facilities

Kim, Jong-Hwan
(Supervising Professor Phae, Chae-Gun)
Dept. of Environmental Engineering
The Graduate School of Energy and Environment
Seoul National University of Science and Technology

Study on status of solid waste treatment facility being operated in the field has been insufficient in spite of many relative researches by this time. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate overall operating status of solid waste treatment facilities through questionnaire survey. Landfill facility, landfill gas energy facility, incineration facility, and food waste recovery facility were selected as solid waste treatment facilities for this study. Incineration facility for questionnaire survey was composed of stoker, pyrolysis, and fluidized bed types. Food waste recovery facility was composed of composting and feed facilities.
The fundamental operating data of the solid waste treatment facilities were analyzed in order to decide the facility number for questionnaire survey. From the data, 6 of landfill facilities, 7 of landfill gas energy facilities, 28 of incineration facilities, and 10 of food waste recovery facilities were selected for the questionnaire survey. The number of the facilities for questionnaire survey were 51, which occupied 10.4% of the total 491 of nationwide facilities. It was thought that the number of the facilities could represent the reliability of the result from the questionnaire survey.
Questionnaire survey was composed of technological, economical, and environmental parts to investigate and evaluate the operating status of the solid waste treatment facilities. Based on national operating facility data, the facility number for questionnaire survey was decided by scale or type. The questionnaire was surveyed from the public officer in each local government after visiting and explaining the purpose. The data from the questionnaire survey were divided in five grades. The data over average + standard deviation value were sorted as A grade. The data below average + standard deviation value were sorted as E grade. The data between A and E were equally sorted as B, C, D grades. The five grades of scores with A(1.0 point), B(0.8point), C(0.6point), D(0.4 point), and E(0.2 point) were alloted to all questions of each part. The weighted scores of 30%, 40%, and 30% were considered for the overall evaluation of the facilities.
As the results of this questionnaire survey, there was a significant difference in an economical evaluation between the facilities. Landfill facility with large and middle scale did not showed significant difference in economical evaluation of operation expense, labor cost, repairing cost, energy cost, reagent cost. Otherwise, the cost for small scale of landfill facility below 1×106 m3 greatly increased. It was evaluated that the larger the scale of landfill facility, the more economic the cost. In the expense items of economical evaluation of landfill gas energy facility, the operating cost was the most heavy compared to labor cost, repairing cost, energy sale profit, energy cost, and reagent cost.
In overall technological, economical, and environmental evaluation, incineration facility with large scale showed higher score than that of small one. The stoker type showed higher score of 65.3 than the 59.0 and 58.3 of fluidized bed and pyrolysis.
From the economical evaluation of food waste recovery, feed facility obtained higher score as 25.0 than that (18.3) of composting facility. The feed facility obtained 61.5 score, which higher 52.7 score of composting facility. Operation rate in technological evaluation was higher in order of incineration facility as 101.6% > food waste recovery facility as 99.2% > landfill gas energy facility as 96.2%. Operation personnel was much more in order of incineration facility as 0.37 person/ton > food waste recovery facility as 0.13 person/ton > landfill facility as 0.00123 person/ton. Operating expenses in economical evaluation was higher in order of incineration facility as 161,677 ￦/ton > food waste recovery facility as 79.865 ￦/ton ≒ landfill facility 73,800 ￦/ton. Used amount of fuel in economical evaluation was much more in order of food waste recovery facility as 0.020 TOE/ton > landfill facility as 0.006 TOE/ton > incineration as 0.004 TOE/ton.
In technological evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 21.5 score > incineration facility as 18.0 score > food waste recover facility as 17.9 score > landfill facility as 13.8 score. In economical evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 25.8 score > incineration facility as 25.4 score > landfill facility as 25.2 score > food waste recover facility as 21.0 score. In environmental evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 21.5 score > incineration facility as 20.7 score > landfill facility as 20.2 score > food waste recover facility as 17.3 score. Landfill gas energy facility showed the highest score among the facilities.
From this study with questionnaire survey, the major solid waste treatment facilities could be actually evaluated in parts of technology, economy, and environment. The results can be used to judge the enlargement of scale and area and the integration for the solid waste facilities. And it can be used to improve the operating method of the present facilities using this evaluation items and scoring method. It is expected that it would be able to help for an local government officer to select the appropriate facility to treat solid wastes including food waste and to recover landfill gas. And it is expected that these results would be able to be used to construct information system for operating and maintenance of the facilities.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Abstract

A Study on the Evaluation of Operational Suitability through the Analysis of Operation Status of Waste Treatment Facilities

Kim, Jong-Hwan
(Supervising Professor Phae, Chae-Gun)
Dept. of Environmental Engineering
The Graduate School of Energy and Environment
Seoul National University of Science and Technology

Study on status of solid waste treatment facility being operated in the field has been insufficient in spite of many relative researches by this time. Therefore, this study was performed to evaluate overall operating status of solid waste treatment facilities through questionnaire survey. Landfill facility, landfill gas energy facility, incineration facility, and food waste recovery facility were selected as solid waste treatment facilities for this study. Incineration facility for questionnaire survey was composed of stoker, pyrolysis, and fluidized bed types. Food waste recovery facility was composed of composting and feed facilities.
The fundamental operating data of the solid waste treatment facilities were analyzed in order to decide the facility number for questionnaire survey. From the data, 6 of landfill facilities, 7 of landfill gas energy facilities, 28 of incineration facilities, and 10 of food waste recovery facilities were selected for the questionnaire survey. The number of the facilities for questionnaire survey were 51, which occupied 10.4% of the total 491 of nationwide facilities. It was thought that the number of the facilities could represent the reliability of the result from the questionnaire survey.
Questionnaire survey was composed of technological, economical, and environmental parts to investigate and evaluate the operating status of the solid waste treatment facilities. Based on national operating facility data, the facility number for questionnaire survey was decided by scale or type. The questionnaire was surveyed from the public officer in each local government after visiting and explaining the purpose. The data from the questionnaire survey were divided in five grades. The data over average + standard deviation value were sorted as A grade. The data below average + standard deviation value were sorted as E grade. The data between A and E were equally sorted as B, C, D grades. The five grades of scores with A(1.0 point), B(0.8point), C(0.6point), D(0.4 point), and E(0.2 point) were alloted to all questions of each part. The weighted scores of 30%, 40%, and 30% were considered for the overall evaluation of the facilities.
As the results of this questionnaire survey, there was a significant difference in an economical evaluation between the facilities. Landfill facility with large and middle scale did not showed significant difference in economical evaluation of operation expense, labor cost, repairing cost, energy cost, reagent cost. Otherwise, the cost for small scale of landfill facility below 1×106 m3 greatly increased. It was evaluated that the larger the scale of landfill facility, the more economic the cost. In the expense items of economical evaluation of landfill gas energy facility, the operating cost was the most heavy compared to labor cost, repairing cost, energy sale profit, energy cost, and reagent cost.
In overall technological, economical, and environmental evaluation, incineration facility with large scale showed higher score than that of small one. The stoker type showed higher score of 65.3 than the 59.0 and 58.3 of fluidized bed and pyrolysis.
From the economical evaluation of food waste recovery, feed facility obtained higher score as 25.0 than that (18.3) of composting facility. The feed facility obtained 61.5 score, which higher 52.7 score of composting facility. Operation rate in technological evaluation was higher in order of incineration facility as 101.6% > food waste recovery facility as 99.2% > landfill gas energy facility as 96.2%. Operation personnel was much more in order of incineration facility as 0.37 person/ton > food waste recovery facility as 0.13 person/ton > landfill facility as 0.00123 person/ton. Operating expenses in economical evaluation was higher in order of incineration facility as 161,677 ￦/ton > food waste recovery facility as 79.865 ￦/ton ≒ landfill facility 73,800 ￦/ton. Used amount of fuel in economical evaluation was much more in order of food waste recovery facility as 0.020 TOE/ton > landfill facility as 0.006 TOE/ton > incineration as 0.004 TOE/ton.
In technological evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 21.5 score > incineration facility as 18.0 score > food waste recover facility as 17.9 score > landfill facility as 13.8 score. In economical evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 25.8 score > incineration facility as 25.4 score > landfill facility as 25.2 score > food waste recover facility as 21.0 score. In environmental evaluation, the scores of the facilities showed the order of landfill gas energy facility as 21.5 score > incineration facility as 20.7 score > landfill facility as 20.2 score > food waste recover facility as 17.3 score. Landfill gas energy facility showed the highest score among the facilities.
From this study with questionnaire survey, the major solid waste treatment facilities could be actually evaluated in parts of technology, economy, and environment. The results can be used to judge the enlargement of scale and area and the integration for the solid waste facilities. And it can be used to improve the operating method of the present facilities using this evaluation items and scoring method. It is expected that it would be able to help for an local government officer to select the appropriate facility to treat solid wastes including food waste and to recover landfill gas. And it is expected that these results would be able to be used to construct information system for operating and maintenance of the facilities.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

제 목 : 폐기물처리시설 운영현황 분석을 통한 운영 적정성 평가연구

지금까지 폐기물처리시설에 대한 많은 연구가 진행되어 왔으나 실제 현장에서의 운영현황에 대해서 면밀히 검토된 연구는 부족한 실정이다. 이에 본 연구에서는 설문조사를 통하여 주요 폐기물처리시설의 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 종합적으로 평가하고 운영현황을 파악하고자 하였다. 폐기물처리시설로는 매립시설(landfill facility), 매립가스 에너지화시설(landfill gas energy facility), 소각시설(incineration facility), 그리고 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(food waste recovery facility)을 선정하였다. 소각시설은 유형별로 스토커(stoker), 열분해(pyrolysis), 유동층(fluidized bed)을, 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설은 퇴비화시설과 사료화시설을 선정하였다.
설문조사 대상 시설수를 결정하기 위하여 2012년 현재 전국에서 운영 중인 각 폐기물처리시설 수를 조사한 후 이를 처리용량(규모)별로 구분하고, 지역과 처리방법, 규모 등을 고려하여 안배한 후 설문대상 시설을 선정하였다. 이를 바탕으로 매립시설 6개소, 매립가스 에너지화시설 7개소, 소각시설 28개소, 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 10개소를 선정하였으며, 해당 시설을 방문하여 설문 목적을 설명하고 담당자의 협조로 설문지 작성을 완료하였다. 설문조사 대상시설수는 전국 총 491개소 중 10.4%에 해당하는 51개소를 조사하였다.
폐기물처리시설의 운영현황을 조사하고 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 통하여 종합적 시설 평가를 실시하였다. 확률 통계이론을 근거로 등급간격을 설정하여 최고등급(1등급)은 <평균치+표준편차> 이상인 범위, 최하등급(5등급)은 <평균치-표준편차> 이하인 경우로 하고 나머지 2.3.4등급은 각각 최상위 등급에서 표준편차의 2/3씩 감하여 등급간격을 설정하였다. 평가항목은 각 항목별로 A~E의 5가지 기준을 설정하고 배점을 최고 1.0에서 최저 0.2까지 부여하였다. 가중치 설정은 100점을 기준으로 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 설정하였다. 본 설문조사는 운영현황에 대한 평가이고 운영의 주요 골자가 운영비, 보수비 등 경제성에 연관이 많으므로 가중치 10점을 경제성에 추가로 배점하여 40점으로 하였으며, 기술성과 경제성은 30점으로 하였다.
기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 평가한 결과 경제성이 가장 뚜렷한 차이를 보이는 항목으로 해석되었으며, 기술성 및 환경성에서는 큰 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다.
매립시설은 경제성 평가결과 대규모와 중규모는 운영비, 인건비, 보수비, 에너지 사용비, 약품비 항목에 있어서 뚜렷한 차이를 나타내지 못하였으나 1×106 m3 미만의 소규모 시설에서는 비용이 크게 증가하였다. 매립시설의 경우 소규모 시설을 지양하고 최소한 중규모 이상의 시설을 운영하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 생각되었다.
매립가스 에너지화시설의 경제성 평가시 운영비, 인건비, 보수비, 에너지 판매수익, 에너지사용비, 약품비의 6가지 지출항목 중 가장 많은 비용을 차지하는 것은 운영비로 나타났다.
소각시설 종합평가에서 대규모 시설이 소규모 시설 보다 높은 점수를 받았으며, 유형별로는 스토커(65.3점)가 유동층(59.0점) 및 열분해(58.3점) 보다 우수한 평가결과를 나타내었다.
음식물류폐기물 자원화시설의 유형별로 평가한 결과 기술성에서 사료화시설이 30점 만점 중 18.3점으로 퇴비화시설의 17.7점 보다 다소 높았으며, 환경성에서도 사료화설이 30점 만점 중 18.3점으로 퇴비화시설의 16.7점 보다 다소 높았다. 경제성 평가에서는 사료화시설이 40점 만점 중 25.0점을 차지하여 퇴비화시설(18.3점) 보다 크게 높은 것으로 나타났다. 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 종합 평가한 결과에서도 100점 만점 중 사료화시설은 61.5점으로 퇴비화시설의 52.7점을 크게 앞서는 것으로 나타났다.
폐기물처리시설 4가지를 비교한 결과 기술성 점수는 매립가스 에너지화시설 21.5점 > 소각시설 18.0점 > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 17.9점 > 매립시설 13.8점으로 매립가스 에너지화시설이 가장 높은 것으로 평가되었다. 기술성에서 운영률은 소각 101.6% > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 99.2% > 매립가스 에너지화시설 96.2% 순을 나타내었으며, 운영인원은 소각시설(0.37 명/톤) > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(0.13 명/톤) > 매립시설(0.00123 명/톤) 순으로 많았다. 경제성 평가에서 매립가스 에너지화시설 25.8점 > 소각시설 25.4점 > 매립시설 25.2점 > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 21.0점으로 큰 차이는 없으나 음식물 자원화시설이 가장 불리한 것으로 조사되었다. 운영비는 소각시설 161,677 원/톤 > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(79.865 원/톤) ≒ 매립시설(73,800 원/톤) 순이었고, 인건비는 소각시설(65,202 원/톤) > 매립시설(39,192 원/톤) > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(21,623 원/톤), 보수비는 소각시설(19,710 원/톤) > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(14,636 원/톤) > 매립시설(10,566 원/톤)의 순으로 나타났다. 환경성 평가에서 매립가스 에너지화시설 21.5점 > 소각시설 20.7점 > 매립시설 20.2점 > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 17.3점으로 큰 차이는 없으나 음식물자원화시설이 가장 불리한 것으로 조사되었다. 연료사용량은 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(0.020 TOE/톤) > 매립시설(0.006 TOE/톤) > 소각시설(0.004 TOE/톤)의 순이었으며, 전기사용량은 소각시설(177.6 kW/톤) > 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설(59.4 kW/톤) > 매립시설(14.7kW/톤) 순으로 높았다. 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 종합한 결과 폐기물 처리시설 중에서는 매립가스에너지화시설이 가장 유리한 것으로 평가되었다.
본 연구를 통하여 주요 폐기물처리시설의 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 평가하고 실제 운영현황을 파악할 수 있었다. 본 연구 결과는 폐기물처리시설의 대형화, 광역화, 집적화를 판단하는 기준으로 사용할 수 있으며, 운영방법을 개선하는데 활용할 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 또한 지자체에서 신규 폐기물처리시설 타당성 검토시 평가항목 및 배점기준을 적용하여 최적의 시설을 선정하기 위한 기초자료로 활용할 수 있으며, 운영관리 정보시스템 구축을 위한 기초자료로 활용할 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서 론 1
• 1.1 연구 배경 1
• 1.2 연구 목적 3
• 1.3 논문 구성 4
• 2. 문헌 고찰 6
• 2.1 폐기물 발생, 처리 및 운영시설 현황 6
• (1) 폐기물 발생 및 처리 현황 6
• (2) 폐기물처리 운영시설 현황 11
• 2.2 국내 폐기물 정책 및 제도 21
• (1) 제 1차 자원순환기본계획(2011~2015) 21
• (2) 폐기물 최적화 22
• (3) 폐기물처리시설 운영 및 관리 지침 24
• 2.3 국외 폐기물 정책 및 제도 31
• (1) 유럽연합 31
• (2) 독일 32
• (3) 영국 35
• (4) 미국 36
• (5) 일본 38
• 2.4 시설 평가기법 40
• (1) 평점모형 40
• (2) 목표달성 평가법 41
• (3) 다속성 효용함수법 41
• (4) 아웃랭킹법 41
• (5) 매트릭스 평가법 41
• (6) 계층분석기법 42
• 3. 연구 방법 44
• 3.1 설문조사 대상시설 44
• 3.2 설문조사 항목 48
• (1) 매립시설 48
• (2) 매립가스 에너지화시설 50
• (3) 소각시설 51
• (4) 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 53
• 3.3 평가항목별 배점 및 가중치 55
• (1) 매립시설 56
• (2) 매립가스 에너지화시설 58
• (3) 소각시설 62
• (4) 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 65
• 4. 결과 및 고찰 68
• 4.1 매립시설 68
• (1) 기술성 평가 68
• (2) 경제성 평가 68
• (3) 환경성 평가 69
• (4) 종합 평가 74
• 4.2 매립가스 에너지화시설 77
• (1) 기술성 평가 77
• (2) 경제성 평가 77
• (3) 환경성 평가 78
• (4) 종합 평가 83
• 4.3 소각시설 85
• (1) 기술성 평가 85
• (2) 경제성 평가 86
• (3) 환경성 평가 91
• (4) 종합 평가 92
• 4.4 음식물류폐기물 자원화시설 101
• (1) 기술성 평가 101
• (2) 경제성 평가 102
• (3) 환경성 평가 103
• (4) 종합 평가 109
• 4.5 폐기물처리시설 비교 112
• 5. 결론 116
• Abstract 120
• References 123
• 부록 (조사 설문지) 127