Municipal Solid Waste Management in Tokyo and SeoulYoon).pdf · 10.9 millions in 1991, and the city’s MSW generation jumped from 0.8 million tons in 1962 to over 11.6 million tons

Proceedings of Workshop of IGES/APN Mega-City Project23-25 January 2002 (Rihga Royal Hotel Kokura, Kitakyushu Japan)

© 2002 Institute for Global Environmental Strategies All rights reserved.

1

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Tokyo and Seoul

Euiyoung YOON*a, Sunghan JOb

1. MSW Management in Tokyo and Seoul

1.1 IntroductionPer capita generation of municipal solid waste (MSW1 hereafter) in the developed countries has increased

threefold over the last two decades. It is predicted that waste generation in the developing countries will be doubling in

the coming decade and global waste will be increased fivefold by 2025 (Brandsma, Dec. 1997: 6-7). Indeed, how to

resolve waste problem has become of enormous pressure for government policymakers. Even until a decade ago,

however, major concern about waste problem had been such issues as reduction of waste generation itself and new

facility siting.

Now, the issue of waste problem denotes different level of concern (that is, the sustainability of global

environment). Not only mass disposal of municipal waste requires more consumption of goods and thus more inputs of

natural resources, but it is also environmentally hazard, such as greenhouse gas emissions in processing waste through

landfills and incineration, which cause global warming. It is known that every ton of consumer goods requires over 8

tons of original materials inputs (Brandsma, ibid), and methane generated from landfilled organic waste accounts for

about 15% of the total community GHGs emission profile (ICLEI and Torrie Smith Associates, 1999). Therefore, it is

natural and necessary to convert the ultimate target of effective management of waste streams to the issue of

environmental conservation.

This study aims to develop useful policy strategies for effective waste management in two Asian-mega cities,

Tokyo2 and Seoul. For the study purpose, this study consists of two parts. The first part reviews the general features

* Corresponding author. Tel: +82-31-299-0838, E-mail: [email protected] Assistant professor, Department of Urban Administration, Hyupsung University, Korea.b Research Fellow, Korea Energy Economics Institute, Korea.1 Municipal solid waste generally refers to the overall general waste produced by households and businesses, and it is equivalent to municipal waste in

Japanese terms. Industrial waste is not included in this category. In Korea and many Western countries like the U.S.A., materials collected to be recycledare listed in waste stream, but not in Japan where materials that are recycled are considered as resources, so in Japan, municipal waste refers to the materialthat, after recycling, requires treatment and disposal by the municipality.

2 Tokyo study was conducted based on limited data.

2

related to MSW management in Tokyo3 and Seoul. The second part analyzes energy recovery from incineration and its

effects on GHGs emission reduction4.

1.2 Fluctuations in MSW Generation

a) TOKYOFigure 1 shows the fluctuations in MSW generation for the last few decades in Tokyo and Seoul. As for the

Tokyo Metropolis, it increased from 1.28 million tons in 1960 to almost 6 million tons in 1976. During the period, the

increase rate of MSW generation in the region was faster than that of population. Since then, the region’s MSW

generation leveled off for years and decreased to 4.9 million in FY19995, which is about 22% reduction compared with

the peak level in FY1989.

As for the 23 ward area of Tokyo, MSW generation increased as much as 29% from about 3.8 million tons in

1984 to 4.9 millions in 1989, compared with about the 3.7%

decrease of population during the same period of time6.

However, municipal waste has decreased for 10 consecutive

years from 1989, with 3,760,000 tons in 1999. Although the

figure decreased by about 23% compared with 1989, in per

capita terms, the ward area of Tokyo is generating more MSW

than the Tokyo Metropolis and Seoul. As of 1998, the Tokyo

ward area’s daily per capita MSW generation is 1.38kg,

compared with 1.18kg of the Metropolis area and 1.04kg of

Seoul (see Figure 2).

3 Tokyo refers to the Tokyo Metropolis of which administrative area consists of the 23-ward district, the Tama district, and the Islands area. Sometimes, this

study deals with the Metropolis and the ward district separately, depending on the data availability.4 Tokyo data and information on this part is very limited at hand, so most discussion of this issue is confined to Seoul.5 As mentioned, in Japan reusable materials are not included in waste stream, and Tokyo's total amount of MSW generation in Figure 1 represents MSW

treated by landfills, incineration, and composting after recycling.6 This was due to a remarkable increase (about 75%) of the waste carried in by business sector during the surging period of Tokyo’s economic activity, while

the increase in the waste collected by the TMG’s Bureau of Waste Management was 13% (Bureau of Waste Management, Tokyo MetropolitanGovernment, 2000. Waste Management Tokyo 1999: 6).

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

x 1,

000

Tokyo MetropolisPopulation

Tokyo MetropolisWaste

Tokyo WardPopulation

Tokyo Ward Waste

Seoul Population

Seoul Waste

Note: Population of the ward district of Tokyo is plotted every 5 year, and MSW is from 1984 to 1997 and 1999.Data sources: IGES’ BeSeTo data; Waste Management in Tokyo 1999; Data Book of the Environment in Tokyo 1995; and Seoul StatisticsYearbook (1961-2000).

Figure 1. Population and MSW Generation in Tokyo and Seoul: 1960-1999.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Tokyo Metropolis Tokyo Ward Seoul

kg/p

erso

n/da

y

1985

1990

1997

Figure 2. Daily Per Capita Waste Generationin Tokyo and Seoul for Selected Years

Data sources: Waste Management in Tokyo 1999; Data Book ofthe Environment in Tokyo 1995; and Seoul Statistics Yearbook(each year).

3

b) SeoulAs presented in Figure 1, Seoul shows a more dramatic change in MSW generation and population than Tokyo.

For Seoul, the last four decades can be divided into two conspicuous periods: one is skyrocketing period from

the 1960s to the early 1990s and downward period since then. Seoul's population increased from 2.4 millions in 1960 to

10.9 millions in 1991, and the city’s MSW generation jumped from 0.8 million tons in 1962 to over 11.6 million tons in

1991, 14.5 times increase as compared to about 3.7 times increase of population during the same period of time. This

was largely due to rapid economic growth and urbanization during the period since waste generation generally responds

to growth in population and economic activity as seen in Tokyo case. Daily per capita generation of MSW in Seoul also

increased from 0.74kg in 1962 to 2.93kg in 1991.

The figure since 1992 has shown a clear picture of downward trend of MSW generation in Seoul7. In 1999,

Seoul generated 10.3 million tons (or 1.06kg per person per day) of MSW, which is almost 60% reduction (or 70 %

reduction in per capita term) as compared to 1992. Such a decrease was made possibly by the Seoul city and the national

governments’ strong policy measures to address the waste problem and more public awareness of the seriousness. Seoul

and Tokyo are very similar in this regard, and this also is reviewed below.

1.3 Composition of MSW

a) The Ward Area of TOKYOAs of 1997, the total amount of general waste collected in the ward area of Tokyo was 4 million tons, of which

household waste accounts for about 46% (1.84 million tons) and waste from businesses occupies the rest (2.16 million

tons). Of the waste collected by the Bureau of Waste Management, the TMG, 2.3 million tons are combustible (see

Table 1).

Of which waste paper occupies as much as 50%, kitchen garbage 29.9%, and so on (see Figure 3). However,

8.1% of the total combustible waste is incombustible (plastics, rubber, and leather) or unfit for incineration (metal, glass,

ceramics, etc), meaning that some of combustible waste has been separated incorrectly. Figure 4 shows the composition

of incombustible waste in 1997. Plastics account for the largest portion (41.9%), following by metal (17.2%), glass

7 The reason for such a big difference in waste generation in Seoul between 1991 and 1992 in Figure 1 is because until 1991 data was based on cubic ton of

the garbage truck and after 1992 a weight tonnage of the truck was used as a measurement. So, direct comparison of the two fiscal years does not describethe change correctly, but it is clear the trend was reversed.

Kitchengarbage29.9%

Waste paper50.0%

Textiles3.7

Wood andgrass, thers

8.3%

Ceramics, earthand others

0.2%

Plastics7.0% Rubber, leather

0.2%

Glass0.2%

Metal0.5%

Combustible waste

Waste unfit forincineration 7.2%

Incombustible waste0.9%

Glass14.1%

Metal17.2% Rubber,

leather4%

Plastics41.9%

Ceramics,earth, sandand others

3.2%

Wastepaper7.2%

Kitchengarbage

5.4%

Wood andgrass,others3.8%

Textiles3.2%

Combustible waste

Waste unfit for incineration 45.9%

Incombustible waste 34.5%

Source: Waste Management in Tokyo 1999, p. 7. Source: Waste Management in Tokyo 1999, p. 7.

Figure 3. Composition of Combustible Waste in theWard Area of Tokyo (1997)

Figure 4. Composition of Incombustible Waste inthe Ward Area of Tokyo (1997)

4

(14.1%), and so on. This figure also shows that 19.6 percent of the incombustible waste is actually combustible waste

such as waste paper, kitchen garbage, textile, and wood. This also implies that almost one-fifth of incombustible waste

has been separated incorrectly.

b) SEOULIn 2000, Seoul generated 11,339 tons of MSW per day.

Figure 5 provides its breakdown by waste type: paper

accounts for the largest portion (28%) of the total MSW

generation, food waste 23%, plastics 7%, and so on.

In Seoul, food waste is more problematic than paper or

any other waste streams in terms of effective waste

management in Seoul. Food waste contains a lot of water (80

to 85%) and is easily decayed, so it causes groundwater

contamination when it is directly landfilled. Food waste also

consumes a lot of fuel for combustion. With these reasons,

landfilling of food waste is supposed to be banned by Waste

Management Act from 2005. Therefore, how to reduce and

utilize food waste is a thorny issue of waste policy. As of 2001, there are two composting facilities with daily total

capacity of 40 tons and four foddering facilities with totaled 270 tons capacity.

Classifying the total amount of 11,339 tons collected in 2000 into combustible, incombustible, and recyclable,

each accounts for about 60% (6,839.6 tons), 5.7% (648.4 tons), and about 34% (1,946.5 tons), respectively (Figures 6

and 7).

1.4 Treatment of MSW

a) The Ward Area of TOKYOUntil the early 1970s, the primary method of treating MSW in Japan was landfilling. However, from the mid-

'70s, incineration became the most sanitary method as interim treatment to treat wastes.

other20%

food waste23%

paper28%

soil 1%

can 1%

glass ottles5%

steel 9%

briquet ash0.2%

wood 3%plastics7% rubber &plastics %

( ): ton/dayData source: MOE, Korea. Environment Statistics, 2000

Figure 5. Breakdown of MSW by Type inSeoul: '00


Figure 6. Composition of Combustible Waste inSeoul (2000)

wood6%

rubber,leather

5%

plastics7%

other26%

paper19%

foodwaste37%

6 ,839.6 tons/day

other58%

briquet ash3%

metal,ceramic

18%

soil21%

648.4 tons/day


Figure 7. Composition of Incombustible Waste inSeoul (2000)

5

In Tokyo, as more wastes began to be processed by incineration than landfills from 1974, incineration rate

sharply increased as seen in Figure 8. As of 1998, the Bureau of Waste Management, TMG has 18 incineration plants

and these facilities process 87.1% of post-recycling and 100% of the Bureau-collected combustible waste. Meanwhile,

landfills receive less waste over time, and two landfills are currently in service to process about 13% of municipal waste

from the ward area of Tokyo.

However, since the landfilled material consists mostly of incombustible and incinerator ash, the demand for

landfills as the final disposal method still remains. Although incineration rate is high, because of increasing pressures

about environmentally sound waste disposal, rising disposal costs, and energy saving, recycling/resource recovery has

become of the most attractive and desirable alternative for an eco-society with zero-emission that the Japanese

government has pursued recent years. Indeed, recycling is not an ultimate purpose in itself. Rather, the most beauty that

recycling can bring about is that it reduces the overall environmental load resulting from waste generation (Nakamura

and Kondo, 2000: 2). Figure 9 shows the performance in Tokyo: recycled materials increased from less than 100,000

tons (recycling rate: 1.5%) in 1982 to 664,289 tons (recycling rate: about 13%) in 19988.

Reproduction is one of effective ways that has been adopted by local municipalities in Japan to minimize waste

generation and encourage resource conservation.

Different types of containers are separately collected

and reproduced, and Figure 10 provides the

breakdown of 1999 in Tokyo. Total 131,218 tons

were collected and 130,754 tons (or over 99%) of

them were reproduced (Figure 10). Composting is

another attractive way of recycling. As for the

kitchen garbage that accounts for 43% of household

waste and about 22% of waste from business sector

in 1997, households, restaurants, and municipal

buildings are the main target. For example, in 1998,

8 Recycling rate in nationwide in Japan was a little over 11% as of 1997, the Tama area 23% in 1999 (http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp), and industrial

waste 21.2% and construction waste 48.2% in nationwide as of 1998 (http://www.chijihonbu.metro.tokyo.jp). It should be noted that in Japan, sincerecycling data are not listed in waste statistics and government documents do not take into account the privately or voluntarily operated recycling programs,the data in Figure 9 do not cover the entire performance of recycling programs in the municipality. Even the recycling data that exist are commodity-specific, and it is hard to get aggregate recycling data. Thus, in Western and/or Korean terms, it is assumed that the recycling rate in Tokyo and Japan as awhole could be easily over the figure. In 1987, the overall national figure was assumed to be about 50% when Western terms are applied (Hershkowitz andSalerni, 1987: 40).

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

1962

1972

1982

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

%

Landfill Incineration

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

ton/

year

Figure 8. Treatment of MSW in Tokyo Figure 9. Changes in Recycling in Tokyo

Total: 130,754 tons

Glasscontainers38,620tons

(30%)

Colored glasscontainers19,674tons

(15%)Other glasscontainers18,553tons

(14%)

Paperpackaging

for everages1,276tons

(1%)

Aluminiumpackaging11,189tons

(9%)Metalpackaging31,683tons

(24%)

PET bottles9,760tons

(7%)

Figure 10. Breakdown of Reproduction by ContainerType in Tokyo (1999)

6

90,161kg/day of food waste were generated from municipal buildings in Tokyo, and 14,722kg (or 16.3%) were

composed. It is the TMG's goal to increase the composting rate of garbage from municipal buildings to 83% by the year

20009. Although households and businesses composting their garbage are increasing, the size is still small. In order for

composting to be meaningful level, more policy efforts and studies are needed to commercialize organic fertilizers

made from kitchen garbage.

b) SeoulFigure 11 shows the changes in MSW treatment by processing type in Seoul: landfilling rate, which had

accounted for almost 100% until 1990, decreased from 93.6 % in 1991 to about 50% in 2000; recycling rate increased

from 6% to 44.5%; and incineration from 0.43% to 5.5% during the period. By the Recycling Promotion Act, all waste

generators have to pay for their waste generation except recyclable materials. Also, recyclable materials, such as paper,

bottles, steels, cans, and plastics, are separately collected. In 2000, 3,851 tons of materials and 1,197 tons of food wastes

were recycled. The breakdown of 3,851 tons is provided in Figure 12: paper 52% steels 22%; glass bottles 13%; plastics

7%; can 4%; and other 2%. 1,197 tons of food waste recycled were not included in this figure as it is classified as

combustible in waste streams in Korea.

1.5 Policy Responses to the Waste Problem

a) TokyoAs reviewed, there are bad news and good news regarding municipal waste management in Tokyo. In short,

among good news are (1) the volume and amount of municipal waste are significantly decreasing and (2) recycling and

reproduction are increasing. Bad news is that the quantity of waste generated in the region still remains at a high level.

In the Tama area, statistics shows that waste generation is growing slightly along with population increase.

The TMG and the Japanese national government have implemented a variety of policy initiatives to address

waste problem. In 1989, the TMG launched a campaign "Tokyo Slim" initiative for waste reduction and began to

employ various educational and public information activities for encouraging citizens to minimize waste generation,

such as "Long-term Vision for the Waste Management," "Public Incinerator Construction Plan," and "Action Plan for

Waste Reduction (1991)." Most of all, "Tokyo Act for Waste Treatment and Recycling (1992)" which was renewed

9 Action Program for Creating an Eco-Society (Draft) in http://www.eco.gr.jp.

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

%

Landfill Incineration Recycling

paper52%

can 4%

steels22%

bottles13%

other 2%plastics

7%

Figure 11. Treatment of MSW in Seoul (2000). Figure 12 Breakdown of Recycled.

7

from the existing "Tokyo Public Cleansing Act" played the most active role in reducing MSW generation during the

1990s.

In 1997, "The TMG Basic Plan for Urban Waste Treatment: Tokyo Slim Plan 21" was formulated by the TMG.

It will be effective from 15 years from 1997 to 2011 as a guideline for waste treatment in the 23 wards of Tokyo. Two

basic principles and detailed measures are as follows 10:

Create an Eco-Recycling Socio-economic System

1. Promote the spread of knowledge about the environment by encouraging environmental studies

2. Expand at store-collection of PET bottles and promote the collection by manufacturers of usedhome appliances and other recyclable items

3. Provide guidance to large corporations and issue general guidelines on expanding the use ofrecycled goods

4. Offer guidance to businesses and others about reducing the volume of commercial waste andexpanding activities to collect recyclable resources

5. Promote the spread of international management and audit standards (ISO-14000 Series) andpressure corporations to provide accurate information regarding the use of recycled goods

Construct an Eco-Recycling Waste Treatment System

1. Construct/Rebuild incineration plants in a systematic fashion based on the principle that each kutreats its own waste within its borders

2. Update facilities to reduce dioxins in exhaust gases

3. Construct facilities for using incineration ash or making it into cement in order to diffuse dioxins

At present, waste management policy in Tokyo is divided into two directions: (1) policies for the establishment

of socio-economic system for waste reduction, and (2) policies for the infrastructure development with higher capacity

for waste treatment. The followings are some of policy measures of each direction.

1) Policy Measures for the Establishment of Socio-economic System for Waste Reduction

• Raising public awareness.

• Promotion of enterprise’s self-treatment.

• Promotion of the production of eco-friendly goods and distribution.

• Promotion of recycling.

• Policy guidance on the waste from commercial sector.

• Investigation on the reduction of final waste disposal.

• Promotion of the use of recycled materials.

• Support for the recycling business.

2) Developing hard infrastructure with higher capacity for waste treatment

• Construction and renovation of public incinerator.

• Upgrade the incinerator’s facility for reducing the amount of dioxin from incineration.

• Developing the facility for melting the dust.

10 http://www.seikatubunka.metro.Tokyo.jp/English/tmn/vol48-1/pg3.htm.

8

• Facility construction for treating incombustible waste

Action plans of household and commercial sectors can be summarized as follows.

Household Sector

• Promote the separated disposal of household waste for recycling (i.e. pet bottles, household electricappliances, and deposit system for various recyclable package, etc.)

• Conduct a study on setting the limit on the amount of waste disposal per person.

• Conduct a study on promoting composting the organic waste.

• Setting the guideline for the use of recycled products.

Commercial Sector

• Promotion of “Green Purchasing” that is to encourage companies to purchase eco-friendly officeequipment through providing relevant product information (e.g. introducing the “EnvironmentalLabel” to each product.

• Promotion of the environmental management system (e.g. ISO14000 series)

• Guidance on reducing the waste disposal.

• Inspection to make sure that separated waste disposal is properly practiced.

• Promotion of the recycling activity of shopping molls.

• Conduct a study on setting the limit on the amount of waste disposal per person.

• Conduct a study on promoting composting the organic waste.

b) SeoulAs mentioned above, before and after 1990, the waste problem emerged as a potential crisis in Seoul. First of all,

Seoul's per capita MSW generation was too much as compare to other mega-cities in developed countries. In 1992,

Seoul generated 1.74kg of MSW per person per day, while Tokyo 1.34kg, New York 1.3kg, and London 0.9kg (see

Figure 13).

In addition, there was no other way of

handling MSW than landfilling in Seoul. In 1991,

93.6% of total MSW collected in Seoul was

landfilled, 6% recycled, and 0.4% incinerated. As

the only existing landfill (Nanjido landfill), which

had treated all MSW generated in Seoul since 1978,

reaches the capacity to be closed 1993, the Seoul

city government began to develop a new facility

(Kimpo landfill) at the western seashore 40km from

Seoul with cooperation of Ministry of Environment

of the national government, Kyonggi-do province,

and Inchon city11.

However, during construction and the initial stage of operation of the Kimpo landfill, they met with serious

intergovernmental conflicts and local opposition, which is called NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) syndrome. In

1.1 0.91.34

1.74

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

NewYork(1991)

London(1991) Tokyo(1992) Seoul(1992)

kg/p

erso

n/da

y

Data: Seoul Development Institute, Sustainable Seoul Development, 1994aand Ministry of Environment, NIER Report, vol. 14, 1992.

Figure 13. Per capita MSW Generation in SelectedMega-cities.

9

addition, the Seoul city had to pay high transportation costs to the new landfill. The answer that the city government

provided as an alternative to landfill was incineration.

In 1991, the Seoul city government established new waste policy direction from landfill to incineration, by

which every autonomous local district12 (22 and now 25) had to construct incineration plant for the treatment of local

waste generated in their jurisdiction. This 'do-it-yourself-principle,' however, faced more mounting opposition from

local residents who live near the potential facility site13. This situation resulted in waste management policy deadlock

and the war on waste in Seoul (Yoon, 1996).

The Seoul city and the national governments recognized the nature of waste problem: building new waste

facilities cannot be the primary option for managing MSW; rather it should be approached in comprehensive way.

Integrated System of Waste Management14 was launched to address the dilemma. The Korean national government

developed legislative initiatives such as the revision of Waste Management Act to promote recycling (September, 1991),

the Volume-based Waste Collection Fee (January, 1995)15, and Separate Collection among others. Major objectives of

these measures were the minimization of waste generation and the promotion of recycling and resource recovery.

The policy effects appeared immediately. Of which the Volume-based Waste Collection Fee greatly contributed

to reduce waste volume and amount and to promote recycling as seen in the previous sections. It also facilitated active

citizen participation (KEI, 1998).

1.6 Challenges to the Current MSW Management System in SeoulAs presented above, the Seoul city government’s efforts to minimize the solid wastes and to promote recycling

have been successfully implemented. However, such efforts are now being challenged, and Figure 1416 shows how the

challenge looks like. The last three years from 2001 to 2003 in the figure are the Seoul city government's projection of

11 Seoul, Kyonggi-do province, and Inchon city constitute the Seoul metropolitan area.12 In 1991, Korean government system changed from centralized system to decentralized system, so local districts of Seoul could have administrative

autonomy free from the city government. However, this meant that the city government also could turn over the administrative responsibility to localdistrict governments. Waste management was the case in point at that time.

13 As of 1996, the only existing one was expanded its capacity and one incinerator was newly built. These two are now treating MSW generated in theirjurisdiction. Another one was built in 2000, but it is not operating due to local residents' opposition. Some other facilities are now being constructed, butmost of the others planned in the early 1990s were canceled or postponed.

14 Integrated waste management system refers to "the complementary use of a variety of waste management practices to safely and effectively handle themunicipal solid waste stream with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment" (USEPA, 1990: 4).

15 By the system, every household and business sector generating MSW has to buy plastic garbage bag for their non-recyclable mixed garbage to be collected.Meanwhile, all recyclable wastes must be separately disposed.

0.02000.04000.06000.08000.0

10000.012000.014000.0

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

x 1,

000

Population MSW: ton/year

0102030405060708090

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

%

Landfill Incineration Recycling

Figure 14. Projection of MSW Generation Seoulafter 2000

Figure 15. Projection of Recycling in Seoul in Seoulafter 2000

10

MSW generation, and as it shows, the downward trend since 1992 seems to touch the turning point at 1998. This means

that the city policymakers admit the performance so far is now facing the limit. Indeed, Seoul has generated more MSW

since 1998, such as from 3.9 million tons in 1998, to 4 million tons in 1999, and to 4.14 million tons in 2000.

As for recycling, Seoul city policymakers set up higher goal of recycling rate from 41 % in 1999 to 53 % in 2003

(see Figure 15). However, many experts say that recycling in Seoul already reached the limit as explained below. It is

also the Seoul city's goal to increase incineration rate from 5 % in 1999 to 12 % in 2001 and then to 17 % in 2003.

However, the goal for 2001 was set up based on the assumption of full operation of a new incineration plant in

Kangnam-ku, but as of December 2001, it is not operating due to local residents' opposition. The following are the

summary of challenges facing the Seoul city's waste management.

• Recycling policy is facing limit. It is well known that economic benefit of recycling is greater thanincineration and/or landfill, but much of the collected wastes are not put into the recycling process.The main reason for that is that recycling is no more profitable for private recyclers as the supply ofrecycling materials exceeds the demand of recycled products.

• Incineration policy also faces deadlock due to local opposition. A newly constructed incineratorfailed to even pilot operation due to resident opposition.

• No effective method is developed to treat kitchen garbage, which is about 26% of total householdwaste.

• The volume-based charging system has contributed to waste prevention and promotion of recycling.However, the collection rate of recyclable materials is decreasing over time (Korea EnvironmentInstitute, 1998), and thus this method should be supplemented.

• There is no systematic policy of encouraging and promoting ‘reuse’.

• It seems that the waste regulatory agency pays less attention to hazardous and radioactive wastetreatment than household wastes. For example, much of radioactive wastes from hospitals stillillegally go to landfill.

• More than 500 thousands of public and private sources (markets, schools, business offices, medicalinstitution, manufacturers, and government institution) and a total length of 7,600 km of road alsogenerate great deal of wastes, but they are not properly treated.

• Citizen participation is important for successful waste policy. There is variation from one district toanother. A more effective citizen participation program is needed.

• One of the reasons that the city government adopted incineration policy was to avoid environmentalhazards posed by landfills. However, it seems that both solutions of landfill and incineration havefailed in that incinerators pollute the air while landfill threatens ground water. Solution to thisdilemma is needed.

2. Energy Recovery from Waste Management and Its Effects on GHG EmissionReduction - the Case of Waste Incineration

As presented above, incineration and landfills have long been a solution to municipal waste problem in Tokyo

and Seoul, respectively. Recycling and waste reduction at source are appearing as attractive methods of managing waste

materials in both cities. Source reduction is the most effective strategy for waste minimization and contributes to reduce

16 The data on Figures 14 and 15 are based on the Seoul city government's projection (http://www.env.seoul.go.lr).

11

energy-related CO2 emission in the manufacturing process (ICLEI, 1999 and US EPA, 1998). Recycling is known as

the second lowest GHG emissions (see Table 2).

Table 1. Net GHG Emissions from Source Reduction and MSW Management Options- Emissions Counted from a Waste Generation Reference Point (MTCE/Ton)

Material SourceReduction

Recycling Composting Combustion Landfiling

Newspaper -0.91* -0.86 NA -0.22 -0.23Office paper -1.03 -0.82 NA -0.19 0.53Aluminumcans

-2.98 -3.88 NA 0.03 0.01

Glass -0.14 -0.08 NA 0.02 0.01PET -0.98 -0.62 NA 0.24 0.01Source: USEPA (Sept. 1998). GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM MANAGEMENT OF SELECTED MATERIALS INMUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE. P. ES-12.

However, in terms of sustainable urban environment, all of the approaches have practical limits in several ways.

Not only is incineration or landfill not the final method of waste management in itself, but also it is unsound

environmentally. With respect to recycling, it still needs energy in the process. Zero-emission of waste is not like

possibly to be realized due to modernized life style of people. Then, it is dilemma that no matter what method is applied,

its environmental burdens on earth still remain at a significant level. Therefore, it is urgent and necessary to search for

more positive alternatives to handle waste and global environmental problem. In other word, admitting that zero-

emission of waste is practically impossible and demands for waste facilities continue to exist, energy recovery from

incineration plants and landfills could be sound approach: it reduces fossil fuel consumption through substitute energy

production such as incineration heat and thus results in GHG emissions reduction. It is also meaningful in terms of the

development of untapped sources of energy.

From section 1 to 4 review incineration practice in Tokyo and Seoul, and section 5 provide the results of the

analysis of energy recovery from incineration plants and its impacts on GHG emissions reduction in Seoul.

2.1. Energy Recovery from Incineration Plants

a) TokyoAs of 1999, there are 18 incineration plants in the 23 wards of Tokyo17, and these facilities processed 100% of

combustible waste collected in the area. Table 2 provides the summary of 18 incineration plants in the ward area of

Tokyo. Major sources from incineration plants are heat energy and steam. Heat energy generated from incineration

plants is used for supply to heated pools, bath water for the elderly, and so on. For example, heat generated at the Ohi,

Hikarigaoka and Ariake plants is supplied for a charge to Tokyo Heat Supply Co., Ltd. and Tokyo Seaside Heat Supply

Co., Ltd., for heating and cooling of cultural center, citizen hall, sports center in neighboring areas. Steam is used to

replenish power generators and surplus power is transmitted for a charge to Tokyo Electric Power Co., Ltd. From these

facilities, 690,980,000kwh of power was generated, and 45% (312,580,000kwh) of which was sold to gain ¥2.69 billion

in FY1996 (Bureau of Waste Management, TMG, 1999).

17 Three more plants were scheduled to be constructed, one by 1999 and two others by 2001 (Bureau of Waste Management, Tokyo Metropolitan

Government, Waste Management in Tokyo 1999).



12

Table 2. Chart of Incineration Plants – Tokyo

Use of surplus heatName Construc-tion

Area(m2)

Maximumdesignedheatingvalue(kcal/kg)

Scale (# ofincinerators)

Incinerationcapacity(t/day)

Powergeneration (kw)

HeatSupply**

Recipient facilities

Setagaya 1969. 3 27,846 1,500 900t (300x3) 540 2,500 W, V Recreational home for the elderly and the handicapped, artmuseum

Ohi 1973. 9 53,767 1,800 1200t (300x4) 880 2,600 W, H Hall for the elderly, cultural center, Yashio Housing ComplexTamagawa 1973. 11 26,948 1,900 1200t (300x4) 420 2,000 H Citizen centerItabashi 1974. 12 44,424 1,900 1200t (300x4) 1,000 3,200 H Social service center, green house, heated poolKatsushika 1976. 12 42,311 2,500 1200t (300x4) 1,080 13,200 H Citizen centerAdachi 1977. 9 37,103 2,500 1000t (250x4) 880 4,290 H Heated pool, social service centerSuginami 1982. 12 36,954 2,100 900t (300x3) 600 6,000 H Heated pool, social service center, community residents centerHakarigaoka 1983. 9 23,690 2,700 300t (150x2) 300 4,000 H, C Citizen hall, Hikarigaoka housing complexOhta No. 1 3,000 600t (200x3) 600 12,000Ohta No. 2

1990. 3 92,0173,500 600t (200x3) 600 15,000

Meguro 1991. 3 29,752 2,800 600t (300x2) 600 11,000 H Welfare facility, citizen center, pool, etc.Nemira 1992. 9 15,763 1,900 600t (300x2) 460 1,500 H Heated pool, hall for childrenAriake 1995. 12 24,000 3,400 400t (200x2) 400 56,00 H Heat supply, sports centerChitose 1996. 3 17,560 2,900 600t (600x1) 600 12,000 H Chitose heated poolEdogawa 1997. 1 28,483 2,900 600t (300x2) 600 12,300 W Recreational facilitySumida 1998. 2 19,000 3,100 600t (600x1) 600 13,000 H Sumida Health Center, sports health centerKita 1998. 3 18,300 2,900 600t (600x1) 600 11,500 H Genki Plaza (swimming pool, etc.)Sinkoto 1998. 9 61,000 3,200 1,800t (600x3) 1,800 50,000 H, V General gym, facilities for the elderly and the handicapped,

botanical garden, poolMinato 1991. 1 29,600 3,200 900t (300x3) 600 22,000Toshima* 1999. 6 12,000 3,200 400t (200x2) 400 7,800Sibuya* 2001. 7 8,450 3,200 200t (200x1) 200 4,200Chuou* 2001. 7 29,700 3,200 600t (300x2) 600 15,000

* These three facilities are those to be constructed as of 1999.** H : Hot water; W: Warm water, V: Vapor; and C: Cool WaterSource: Bureau of Waste Management, TMG (1999). Waste Management in Tokyo 1999.



13

b) Incineration of MSW in SeoulIn Seoul, 10,971 tons/day of MSW were generated in 1999, of which combustible materials accounts for about

60%. 78.9% of them went to landfill, and about 8% of combustible wastes and 4.8% of the total MSW generated were

treated by incineration (see Table 3). Incinerators accept industrial wastes as well, but only minimum portion of them is

processed by incineration.

1,746 tons/day of general industrial waste and 11,231 tons/day of construction waste were generated. 19.4tons

(or 1.1%) and 22.5tons (or 2.9%) of each source were treated by incineration. 1.2% of combustible general industrial

wastes and 0.7% of combustible construction wastes went to incineration plants.

Table 3. Waste Treatment by Incineration in Seoul (1999)(Unit: ton/day)Waste Type Combustible Incombustible Recyclable Total (%)

Generation 6,668.8(100) 699.9 3,603.0 10,971.7 (100.0)Landfill 5,263.1(78.9) 699.9 0 5,963.0 (54.3)

Incineration 526.7(7.9) 0 0.1 526.8 (4.8)MSW

Recycling 879.0(13.2) 0 3,602.9 4,481.9 (40.9)Generation 1657.6(100) 89.2 0 1,746.8 (100.0)

Landfill 829.8(50) 44.9 0 874.7 (50.0)Incineration 19.4(1.2) 0 0 19.4 (1.1)

Recycling 186.4(11.3) 44.3 0 230.7 (13.2)

GeneralIndustrial Waste

Ocean Disposal 622.0(37.5) 0 0 622 (35.6)Generation 2,132.6(100) 9,098.6 0 11,231.2 (100.0)

Landfill 1,585.6(74.4) 2,908.8 0 4,494.4 (40.0)Incineration 14.5(0.7) 8.0 0 22.5 (2.0)

ConstructionWaste

Recycling 532.5(25) 6,181.8 0 6,714.3 (59.8)

c) Incineration Capacity - SeoulAs of 1999, there are 27 incinerators in Seoul (see Table 4), with totaled capacity of 52,975kg per hour. However,

25 of 27 facilities have small capacity with the 50 to 300kg per hour range, which treat as little as about 4% of the total

waste treated by incineration in Seoul. Two plants (that is, Nowon and Yangchon)18 account for 94% of the total

capacity and handle 96% of the total.

Table 4. Incinerators in Seoul (1999) (1,200won=U$1.00)

Location Capacity(kg/hour)

Treatment amount(ton)

Construction costs(mil. Won)

Hangang-ro 95 28 112Seokye-dong 50 15 28Wonhyo-ro 50 2 28

Namyoung-dong 50 11 28Seobinggo-dong 50 0 28

Yongsan-ku

Yongsan2ka-dong 50 0 28Kwangjang-dong 56 15Kwangjin-ku Jayang-dong 120 22 218

Tongdaemun-ku Whikyong-dong 300 364 354Jungrang-ku Myonmok-dong 95 160 49

Jangwi-dong 95 99 25Wolkok-dong 95 97 25Sungbuk-ku

Sanwolkok-dong 95 98 25Kangbuk-ku Bun3-dong 95 244 115Tobong-ku Tobong-dong 75 220 30Nowon-ku Sanggye-dong 33,333 79,936 64,666Mapo-ku Sungsan-dong 100 24 81

Yangchun-ku Mok-dong 16,666 81,338 31,892Kangseo-ku Makok-dong 95 33 103

Kuro-ku Kochuk-dong 95 217 50Keumchun-ku Doksan-dong 195 808 188

18 These two facilities are those incinerators built by the Seoul city government to address the waste crisis in the 1990s.

14

Yongdengpo-ku Daerim-dong 250 449 145Tongjak-ku Shindaebang-dong 95 249 35Kwanak-ku Shillim-dong 95 72 36Songpa-ku Jangji-dong 390 906 390

Koduk-dong 95 1,800 35Kangdong-ku Koduk-dong 195 46 162Total 27 52,975 167,468 98,875

Table 5. Operation of Incineration Plants in Seoul

Incinerators

Amount ofwaste

accepted(ton/year)

Treatment(ton/day)

Operation(day/year)

Treatment(ton/year)

OperationRate(%)

Furnace #1 - 250 202 50,500 30.7Furnace #2 - 232 127 29,464 27.3Nowon

Total 86,948 482 - 79,936 Ave. 29.0Furnace #1 - 171 268 45,868 68.9Furnace #2 - 166 214 35,470 53.5Yangchon

Total 84, 298 337 - 81,338 Ave. 61.2

d) Energy Recovery From Incineration Plants in SeoulOnly Nowon and Yangchon plants produce heat. As provided in Table 5, in 1999, Nowon plant accepted 86,948

tons of waste and treated 79,936 tons, and Yangchon plant received 84,298 tons and processed 81,338 tons. Nowon

plant was designed to treat 800tons/day (400tons for each furnace) and Yangchon 400tons/day, based on the amount of

waste generation in the early 1990s. As mentioned, however, municipal waste generation reduced by almost 30% and

recycling rate increased to more than 40%. The city and local district governments tried to take wastes from other

districts, but it failed due to residents' opposition. As a result, both plants do not have enough waste to run their capacity.

Only about 240tons/day of waste go to each facility, and Nowon and Yangchon's operation rate is as low as 29 and

61.2 %, respectively. As for material type of waste treated by the two incinerator plants, as presented in Figure 16, food

waste accounts for nearly half of the total amount at both plants. Since food waste contains a lot of water to reduce heat

efficiency of incineration waste, reduction and utilization of food waste are urgent policy issue. Paper also occupies

large portion, 26% for Nowon and 22% for Yangchon. Also, 4 to 6% of waste treated in the plants is unfit for

incineration, such as plastics, rubber, metal, etc.

Nowon Incineration Plant

Non-com-bustible

4%

Other0.1%

Textile4%

Paper26%

Wood2%

Vinyl17%

Foodwaste47%

Yangchon Incineration Plant

Foodwaste49%

Non-combustible

6%

Vinyl16%

Wood2%

Paper22%Textile

4%

Other0.5%

Figure 16. Breakdown of Waste Material Type Treated by Seoul Incinerators (1999).

15

e) The Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Reduction by using Incineration Heat - the Seoul CaseUsing waste incineration heat as heating energy instead of fossil fuels, namely Clean Development Mechanism

approach, it can be expected to get substitute benefits of fuels, putting in for the same amount of heating energy

production as well as reduction of greenhouse gas through alternation of fuels. This research analyzes the reduction

effects of energy and green house gas in case of using incineration heat, made from two existing waste incineration

plants in Seoul.

The method of analysis was so called 'substitute facility comparison method' which compares used fuels and

the amount of emitted greenhouse gases getting from the equivalent heat production, operating existing boilers using

LNG or diesel. At this point, we calculate in advance the amount of emitted gases created from the waste incineration

process, also presumed that we would get no green house gas emission when we compare with substitute facilities

because we see no further emission in term of waste incineration heat recovery. But the emission from supplementary

fuels (LNG and Diesel) is included in the comparison.

1) The Method of Analysis

Note: Production efficiency is calculated based on the data of waste input and the amou

*: Production efficiency (%) = (the total amount of heat production / th Here, the total amount of heat production

= [(the amount of waste input) * (heating value of waste, + (LNG/Diesel heating value) * (the a

and, the total input heating value = (the total heating value of inpuSource: KEEI and Korea District Heating Corp. (2001. 4). Study on the Development the Fulfillment of Global Climate Change Agreement. pp. 188 - 198

Heat loss rate in thesupply (selling) process

Portion by fuel type,Fuel price,Production efficiency*Loss rate

Estimation: the amount ofheat supply

Estimation: the amount offuel consumption & fuelprice

GHG emission coefficientsby fuel type

Estimation of theamount of GHG emission

District Heatingby Incineration Heat

Estimation: supply

Estimation: fuel consumprice

Estimation amount of G

Heat Sales(assumption:

SameAmount)

Energy Saving &GHG Emission Reduction

Centralized Heating byLNG or Diesel Boiler

nt o

e

kcmt

of

the

thept

of H

Loss rate for preparation heat& in the steam pipeline

amount heat

Portion by fuel type,Fuel price,Production efficiency

amount ofion & fuel

GHG emission coefficientsby fuel type

f heat production of incineration plant.

total input heating value) * 100

al/kg)ount of LNG/Diesel input)]waste) + (heating value of supplementary fuel) Energy Saving District Heating System for

theG emission

16

Figure 17. Framework of Comparative Analysis for Energy Saving and GHG Emission Reduction:Incineration Heat vs. Centralized Boiler Heating System.

The analysis of fuel conservation and green house gas reduction is conducted on the assumption that the same

amount of heat energy is distributed to consumers. In 2000, Nowon incineration plant produced 99,776Gcal of heat and

95,300Gcal was supplied to consumers (loss rate: 4.49%). As for Yangchon plant, they produced 126,232Gcal and

75,605Gcal was sold (loss rate: 40.11%)19. By the 'substitute facility comparison method,' we estimated the reduction

rate of fuel and greenhouse gas, in case of replacing the heat supply of existing central heating system, using LNG or

diesel boiler to the heat supply through the waste incineration.

The amount of heat supply is calculated, considering the rate of loss at each level in the process of supply, and

also the amount of each fuel consumption is calculated, considering the rate of allotted fuels, production efficiency, loss

in the production process, and the amount of calculated heat supply. When the amount of each fuel consumption is

calculated, then the fuel cost can be calculated, reflecting the price of each fuel.

The amount of greenhouse gas can get by applying the emission coefficients of each fuel and gas to the

previously estimated consumption rate of each fuel. The emission coefficients that we use for that is the one 「Revised

1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IEA, OECD」 suggested. The specific emission

coefficients are shown in <Table 6>.

The district heating system using incineration heat, which is obtained through the process mentioned above, is

compared with the central heating system through LNG or Diesel boilers with the categories of the fuel consumption

and greenhouse emission rate. As a result of that we estimate the amount of fuel and greenhouse gas reduction of

incineration heating system.

The gases that we estimate are CO2, CH4, N2O emitted in the fuel combustion from the six gases defined in

UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and Kyoto Protocol.

Framework for the analysis and the calculation equations for major items are provided above (Figure 17).

Table 6. Estimation coefficients of greenhouse gasCentral heating using boilerGas Fuel District heating

Using incineration heat LNG DieselLNG 0.6374 0.6405 -Waste 1.1891 - -CO2

(TC/TOE)Diesel 0.8373 - 0.8373LNG 0.0419 0.2179 -Waste 12.5583 - -CH4

(Ton/1000TOE)Diesel 0.1256 - 0.4187*LNG 0.0042 0.0050 -Waste 0.1674 - -N2O

(Ton/1000TOE)Diesel 0.0251 - 0.0251

Note: The differences of CH4 diesel emission figures in the each heating system are due to the IPCC Guidelines which categorizecentral heating system as residential and commercial use, and district heating system as energy and industrial use.

In addition to that, the table of each fuel unit price for estimation of fuel cost is shown below.

19 The reason for the Yangchon plant's higher loss rate than Nowon is that while Nowon plant is just next door to the Nowon District Heating Corporation and

thus no loss in the supply process, Yangchon plant is located distant from the district heating corporation and its loss rate for preparation heat and in thesupply process is as high as 33.7%.

17

Table 7. The Fuel Price

Fuel District heating systemusing incineration heat

Central heating system usingboiler

LNG (Won/m2) 321.2 382.22)

Waste (Won/kg) 0 -Diesel (Won/ℓ) 325.01) 399.32)

Note: 1. The actual average unit price at Bundang and Yongin incineration plants.2. The unit price of Centralized Heating from "'99 The result of district heating energy saving and environmental improvement,Feb 2000. Technology Department, Korea District Heating Corp,"

2) The Results

(1) Nowon incineration plant: vs. LNG centralized heating

When we compared district heating system using incineration heat with centralized heating system using LNG

boiler in Nowon plant, the results come out as follows:

• Incineration heating system using waste reduces as much as 98% of LNG consumption by using only211 TOE as compared to LNG boiler centralized heating system using 10,589 TOE. This is becauseNowon incineration plant uses LNG only as starting fuel.

• Waste incineration heating system generates total 134TOE of CO2 as compared to 6,800TOE ofGHG from LNG boiler centralized heating system to bring 98% reduction rate of GHG emissions.20

• The reduction rate of fuel expenses is 98.3% in the case of using incineration heat instead of LNG.This reduction is equivalent to US$ 333.300 of saving benefit when we look at the effect in thereduction rate of emission as CDM is introduced (US$50/TC).21

The analysis results mentioned are listed in the table below.

Table 8. The comparison of Nowon incineration heat district heating to LNG boilercentralized heating

Nowon incinerationheat district heating

LNG boiler centralized heating

The amount ofReduction (rate)

The amount of fuel used(unit/TOE)

LNG 211 10,589

Input waste* 12,600 -

Diesel -

Total amount used 211 10,589 10,378(98.0 %)

The amount of greenhousegas emission(unit/TC)

CO2 (the amount of CO2 emittedfrom input waste) 134(14,983) 6,782

CH4 (the amount of CH4 emittedfrom input waste) 0 (906) 13

N2O (the amount of NO2 emittedfrom input waste) 0 (178) 5

Total GHG 134(16,068) 6,800 6,666(98.0 %)

20 As for the 98% of reduction rate of GHG emissions, it should be mentioned that GHG emissions from waste incineration is not included in the figure

because the waste once generated emits GHG even if it is not incinerated and thus it produces no further GHG through incineration. If the waste is disposedto landfills, it emits CH4 with even more global warming effect than CO2.

21 This figure, however, is just roughly calculated one since such figures as labor costs. maintenance costs, waste collection expenses, etc are not included inthe calculation due to data problem.

18

Fuel expenses (unit/1000 won)

LNG 64,397 3,854,053

Input waste - -

Diesel -

Total cost of fuel 64,397 3,854,053 3,789,656(98.3%)

CDM effect(US$ 50/TC assumed)

US$ 333,300* : Total amount of waste input in 2000 is 80,720 tons, and the figure 12,600 is the one calculated in TOE (Tons of Oil Equivalent)

(2) Nowon incineration plant: vs. Diesel centralized heating

When we compared district heating system using incineration heat with diesel boiler of centralized heating

system in Nowon district, it resulted that the reduction rate of energy amount used was 98.0%, greenhouse gas emission

was 98.5% and fuel expenses was 98.6% in the case of using incineration heat. And it was analyzed that there can be

US$ 439.000 of saving benefit when diesel boiler is substituted to waste incineration if US$50/TC is applied. The

analysis results are listed in < Table 9>.

Table 9. The comparison of Nowon incineration heat district heating to diesel boiler centralized heating

Nowon incineration heatdistrict heating

Diesel boilercentralized heating

The amount ofreduction (rate)


LNG 211 -

Input waste 12,600 -

Diesel 10,589

Total amount used 211 10,589 10,378(98.0 %)

The amount of greenhousegas emission(unit/TC)

CO2 (the amount of CO2emitted from input waste)

i i )134(14,983) 8,866

CH4 (the amount of CH4emitted from input waste) 0 (906) 25

N2O (the amount of N2Oemitted from input waste) 0 (178) 22

Total GHG 134(16,068) 8,914 8,780(98.5 %)

Fuel expenses(unit/1000 won)

LNG 64,397 -

Input waste - -

Diesel 4,578,313


19

CDM effect(US$ 50/TCassumed)

US$ 439,000

Note: The amount of fuel used and total GHG do not include the amount of input waste and incineration emission.

(3) Yangchon incineration plant: vs LNG centralized heating

When we compared district heating system using incineration heat with diesel boiler of centralized heating

system in Yangchon district, it resulted that the reduction rate of energy amount used was 98.6%, greenhouse gas

emission was 98.6% and fuel expenses was 98.9% in the case of using incineration heat. There can be also US$ 266.100

of saving benefit when we look at the effect in the reduction rate of emission as CDM is introduced (US$50/TC). The

analysis results are listed in <Table 10> below.

Table 10. The comparison of Yangchon incineration heat district heating to LNG boiler centralized heating

Yangchon incinerationheat district heating

LNG boiler centralizedheating



LNG 114 8,401

Input waste* 12,509 -

Diesel -

Total amount used 114 8,401 8,287(98.6 %)The amount of greenhouse

gas emission(unit/TC)CO2 (the amount of CO2emitted from input waste) 73(14,874) 5,380



Total GHG 73(15,951) 5,395 5,322(98.6 %)


LNG 34,856 3,057,562

Input waste - -

Diesel -



US$ 266,100* : Total amount of waste input in 2000 is 84,866 tonsNote: The amount of fuel used and Total GHG do not include the amount of input waste and incineration emission.

(4) Yanchon incineration plant: vs Diesel centralized heating

By the comparison of district heating system using incineration heat to centralized diesel boiler heating system

in Yangchon, it appeared that the reduction rate of energy amount used was 98.6%, greenhouse gas emission was 99.0%

20

and fuel expenses was 99.0% in the case of using incineration heat. Waste incineration can get US$ 349.950 of saving

benefit through this system when US$50/TC is applied. <Table 11> presents the analysis results.

Table 11. The comparison of Yangchon incineration heat district heating to diesel boiler centralized heating

Yangchon incineration heatdistrict heating

Diesel boilercentralized heating



LNG 114 -

Input waste 12,509 -

Diesel 8,401

Total amount used 114 8,401 8,287(98.6 %)The amount of greenhouse

gas emission(unit/TC)CO2 (the amount CO2 emitted

from input waste) 73(14,874) 7,034



Total GHG 73(15,951) 7,072 6,999(99.0 %)


LNG 34,856 -

Input waste - -

Diesel 3,632,144



US$ 349,950

Note: The amount of fuel used and Total GHG do not include the amount of input waste and incineration emission.

<Further Research Items>

A. Energy Recovery From Landfill Gas - SeoulNanjido landfill had received almost all of unprocessed mixed municipal wastes generated in Seoul for 15 years

from 1978 to 1993, with no prevention facility of environmental pollution. When it was closed in 1993, it became a

huge garbage mountain with 94meter height and 92,000,000 m3 of mixed garbage. Most serious problem was

groundwater contamination and methane gas emissions from the facility. The followings are the summary of the profile

and Energy Recovery Plan of Nanjido landfill.

<Profile of Nanjido Landfill>

• Operation period: 1978 - 1993

• Capacity after closed: 91,970,000m3

• Height (above sea level): 94-98m

21

• Amount of CH4 generation: 340,000m3 per day

According to a US EPA study, landfill methane gas emissions are a major contributor to greenhouse gases and

global warming.22 Some scientific evidence says that methane gas has 20 to 30 times more negative impact than CO2 on

global warming. Therefore, how to treat methane gas buried in landfills is a big challenge to be solved.

The Seoul city government did stabilization project of the closed facility for 3 years from December 1996 to

September 2001 to prevent groundwater pollution and methane gas emissions. Upon the stabilization project, the city

government recently announced "the Nanjido landfill gas-to-energy plan." The followings are the summary of Nanjido

landfill and the landfill gas-to-energy plan.

<Summary of the Methane Gas-To-Energy Plan>

• Amount of CH4 utilization: 170,000m3 per day

• Period of plan: June 2002 to 2022

• Planning area: 2002 World cup complex and neighboring area with 12,365 households

• Monetary benefit: about U$4.2 million per year

B. Recycling of Kitchen GarbageUtilization of kitchen garbage that accounts for about 30% of combustible waste collected in Tokyo and 23% of

total MSW generation in Seoul.

References

Action Program for Creating an Eco-Society (Draft) in http://www.eco.gr.jp.

Brandsma, Erik K. Dec. 1997. Main Sources and Types of Waste and their Recent Trends. In Changing Consumption

Patterns: Waste Prevention & Minimization, pp: 3-11. Korea Environment Institute, Seoul, Korea.

Bureau of Waste Management, TMG. 1999. Waste Management in Tokyo 1999.

Data Book of the Environment in Tokyo 1995.

Hershkowitz, Allen and Eugene Salerni. 1987. Garbage Management in Japan: Leading The Way.

ICLEI and Torrie Smith Associates. 1999. Just Do It! (But Count It Too!!) Local Action Plans for Greenhouse Gas Reduction

and Importance of Quantification.

KEEI and Korea District Heating Corp. April 2001. Study on the Development of Energy Saving District Heating System for

the Fulfillment of Global Climate Change Agreement.

Ministry Of Environment, Korea. 2000. Environment Statistics.

Ministry of Environment, NIER Report, vol. 14, 1992.

Nakamura, Shinichiro and Yasushi Kondo. 2000. Recycling, landfill consumption, and CO2 emission analysis by waste

input-output model. Working Paper Series, No. 2007. Institute for Research in Contemporary Political and Economic

Affairs, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.

OECD. 1996. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IEA.

Seoul Development Institute. 1994. Sustainable Seoul Development. Seoul, Korea.

Seoul Metropolitan Government. Seoul Statistics Yearbooks (1961-2000).

US Environmental Protection Agency. March 1997. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Management. In

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg.htm.

22 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Municipal Waste Management, March 1997,

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg.htm.

22

USEPA. 1990. Sites for our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public Involvement.

USEPA. September 1998. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste.

EPA Contract no. 68-w6-0029.

Yoon, Euiyoung. 1996. The Impacts of Waste Facilities on Property Values: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of Waste

Incineration Plant Siting in Seoul, Korea. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Cleveland State University.

<Web sites and others>

http://www.chijihonbu.metro.tokyo.jp

http://www.env.seoul.go.lr

http://www.kankyo.metro.tokyo.jp.

http://www.seikatubunka.metro.Tokyo.jp/English/tmn/vol48-1/pg3.htm.

IGES' BeSeTo data.

Documents

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Tokyo and SeoulYoon).pdf · 10.9 millions in 1991, and the city’s MSW generation jumped from 0.8 million tons in 1962 to over 11.6 million tons