화학공학소재연구정보센터
홈 로그인 로그아웃 연락처 사이트맵
Clean Technology, Vol.24, No.3, 221-232, September, 2018
DOI10.7464/ksct.2018.24.3.221  Export Citation
매립시설 및 매립가스 에너지화시설 운영현황 분석
Operating Performance Evaluation of Landfill Facility and Landfill Gas (LFG) Energy Facility
김종환, 배재근1, 박준석2, †
  • (주)세원이엔이 대표이사, 14322 경기도 광명시 하안로 60, 광명테크노파크 D동 605호
  • 1서울과학기술대학교 환경공학과, 교수, 01811 서울 노원구 공릉로 232
  • 2강원대학교 지구환경시스템공학과, 교수, 25913 강원도 삼척시 중앙로 346
Jong-Hwan Kim, Chae-Gun Phae1, and Joon-Seok Park2, †
  • Sewon Engineering & Energy, CEO, #D-605, GMtechnoPark, 60 Haan-ro, Gwangmyeong-si, Gyeonggi-do 14322, Korea
  • 1Department of Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Professor, 232 Gongneung-ro, Nowon-gu, Seoul 01811, Korea
  • 2Department of Earth & Environmental Engineering, Kangwon National University, Professor, 346 Joongang-ro, Samcheok-si, Gangwon-do 25913, Korea
E-mail:
초록
본 연구는 설문조사를 통하여 매립시설과 매립가스 에너지화시설의 기술성, 경제성, 환경성을 평가하고자 실시되었다. 기술성, 경제성, 환경성에 대하여 가중치를 균등하게 부여한 경우, 각 40%, 30%, 30%로 설정한 경우, 그리고 각 30%, 40%, 30%로 설정한 경우의 세 가지로 종합평가 점수를 분석한 결과 가중치에 따른 각 항목별 점수는 큰 차이가 없었다. 세 가지 가중치 방법을 이용하여 매립시설에 대한 기술성, 경제성, 환경성에 대한 종합평가 결과 기술성에서 대.중규모가 14.8 ~19.7점과 14.3 ~ 19.0점으로 소규모(9.8 ~ 13.0점) 보다 다소 높은 점수를 받았고, 환경성은 대.소규모가 21.3 ~ 23.7점과 20.8 ~ 23.1점으로 중규모의 17.6 ~ 19.6점 보다 다소 높았다. 그러나 경제성에서는 대.중규모가 22.0 ~ 29.3점과 20.5 ~27.3점으로 소규모의 6.0 ~ 8.0점 보다 큰 격차를 보이며 뚜렷하게 높은 점수를 평가받았다. 기술성, 경제성, 환경성에 대한종합점수는 대.중.소규모가 각각 63.0 ~ 65.4점, 57.1 ~ 59.2점, 38.6 ~ 40.6점으로 규모별 큰 차이를 나타내었는데 이는 경제성 부분 평가가 가장 큰 영향을 미쳤기 때문인 것으로 평가되었다. 매립가스 에너지화시설도 기술성에서 대.소규모가19.2 ~ 25.6점과 17.8 ~ 23.7점, 환경성에서 23.1 ~ 25.7점과 21.3 ~ 23.7점으로 시설 규모별로 뚜렷한 차이를 보이지 않았으나 경제성 부분에서는 27.8 ~ 33.3점과 18.8 ~ 25.1점으로 보다 큰 차이를 나타내었다. 매립시설과 매립가스 에너지화시설의 운영평가에 가장 큰 영향은 미치는 인자는 상대적으로 기술성과 환경성보다 경제성인 것으로 나타났다.
This research was conducted to evaluate the operational performance of landfill facility and landfill gas energy facility from the questionnaire survey. In order to evaluate overall operational performance, three types of weighting methods were applied to each technical, economical, and environmental item. There was no significant difference between an equal weighted method, a weighted method of 40% for technology, 30% for economy, and 30% for environment, and a weighted method of 30% for technology, 40% for economy, and 30% for environment. In technical performance, large and middle scales of landfill facilities showed higher scores of 14.8 ~ 19.7 and 14.3 ~ 19.0 than 9.8 ~ 13.0 of small scale one. In environmental performance, large, middle, and small scales of landfill facilities showed 21.3 ~ 23.7, 17.6 ~ 19.6, and 20.8 ~ 23.1 scores, respectively. However, in economical performance, there was significant difference between them with scale. Large and middle scales of landfill facilities showed higher scores of 22.0 ~ 29.3 and 20.5 ~ 27.3 than 6.0 ~ 8.0 of small scale one. As a result of evaluation for landfill gas energy facility, large scale facility showed 19.2 ~ 25.6 and 17.8 ~ 23.7 scores in technical performance and 23.1 ~ 25.7 and 21.3 ~ 23.7 scores in environmental performance, respectively. However, in economical performance evaluation, large scale of landfill gas energy facility showed relatively higher of 27.8 ~ 33.3 score than 18.8 ~ 25.1 of small scale one. From these results, it was shown that economy evaluation heavily effect on the operational performance of landfill facility and landfill gas energy facility compared to technology and environment evaluation.
Keywords:Landfill facility;Landfill gas energy facility;Technical performance;Economical performance;Environmental performance
  1. Ko JY, Phae CG, Do IH, Park JS, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 30(3), 278 (2008)
  2. http://library.me.go.kr/, 2016 White Paper of Environment (assessed date : May 21, 2018).
  3. Lee IS, Kang HY, J. Korean Inst. Resour. Recycl., 25(6), 82 (2016)
  4. Feng SJ, Zheng QT, Computers Geotech., 63, 135 (2015)
  5. Chun SK, J. Korean Soc. Environ. Eng., 38(3), 128 (2016)
  6. Ministry of Environment, Feasibility Investigation for LFG Recycling Work of Local Government, Report, Jun (2009).
  7. Ministry of Environment and Korea Environment Corporation, Installation and Operation Status of Solid Waste Treatment Facility in 2015, Report, December (2016).
  8. Korea Environment Corporation, “Operation and Management Status of Solid Waste Treatment Facility in Local Government,” Report, December (2012).
  9. Kim JH, Ph.D Dissertation, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, 2017.
  10. Lee JH, Master Thesis, Anyang University, Anyang, 2009.
  11. Park HJ, J. Korean Inst. Information Commun. Eng., 18(4), 913 (2014)
  12. Kim JH, Park JS, Phae CG, Clean Technol., 22(3), 181 (2016)
  13. Ministry of Environment ； Korea Environment Corporation, Generation and Treatment Status of Municipal Solid Waste in Nationwide, Annual Report (2013, 2016).
  14. http://www.law.go.kr/, Solid Waste Management Law (assessed date : May 21, 2018).
  15. http://www.law.go.kr/, Enforcement Regulation for Conservation of Groundwater Quality (assessed date : May 21, 2018).
  16. Kim JH, Park JS, Phae CG, J. Korean Oil Chemists' Soc., 33(3), 507 (2016)