Incheon's 153-billion-won automated waste system sat idle for over a decade — now residents may foot the bill

Incheon's automated household waste collection system in Yeongjong International City — known as Cleannet — consumed more than 150 billion won ($111 million) in public funds yet has failed to operate normally for over a decade, reigniting a fierce debate over administrative failure.

The dispute over who bears responsibility among the agencies involved has dragged on for years, and even a handover agreement signed in 2023 has left the system's future in doubt.

Calls are growing for a full accounting of how the project was planned, managed and handed over — not merely a push to get the facility running again.

The Yeongjong International City General Association and the Incheon Civil Society Organizations Solidarity held a press conference Monday, demanding an audit of the entire Cleannet project and an independent assessment of its economic and environmental viability. "A facility that cost more than 153 billion won in public funds and has not operated for over a decade must not be dumped on residents," they said.

Cleannet is an automated system that transports household waste through underground pipes to collection centers.

The network comprises four collection centers, 70.4 kilometers of underground piping and roughly 790 waste inlets — counting both developer-installed and pre-sale buyer-installed units.

The project was carried out by Korea Land and Housing Corp. (LH) and Incheon Housing and City Development Corp. (IH). Construction began in April 2010 and was completed in December 2014, but the problems started there.

Completing the physical infrastructure did not translate into a functioning waste management system. A prolonged standoff between agencies over the handover prevented normal operation from ever getting off the ground.

From 2014 to 2019, LH made 11 requests for joint handover inspections with the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority and the Yeongjong district office, all of which were rejected.

Between April 2021 and March 2022, LH made eight more requests to convene handover meetings, again without success.

The dispute over who should operate the facility remained unresolved for years after construction ended, and related work was suspended entirely in late 2021.

Questions persist over how a facility worth more than 150 billion won could go a decade without even a basic operational framework being established.

Cleannet was never a simple private installation. As a piece of urban infrastructure built with vast public resources, the project should have undergone rigorous scrutiny from the planning stage — covering the scale of the facility, its operating model, maintenance costs and handover conditions.

In practice, the handover dispute between LH, which built the facility, and the agencies responsible for its future management went unresolved for years.

LH repeatedly called for the handover; the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority and the Yeongjong district office repeatedly refused.

That is precisely why civic groups at Monday's press conference demanded an audit covering the entire chain: project planning, budget execution, design and construction, post-completion management, the selection of an operating entity and the handover process itself.

The 2023 agreement: a solution, or just a new starting point?

That is not to say the agencies involved made no attempt at a resolution.

A task force of relevant agencies operated from August 2022 to June 2023, and in October 2023, LH, IH, Jung-gu district office and the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority signed a handover agreement for the automated Cleannet system.

The agreement's framework is relatively clear. LH is to carry out repair work and a test run, followed by one year of commercial operation. A comprehensive diagnostic study, jointly supervised by LH and the district office, will then assess whether the system is functioning properly before the facility is transferred to the district office in full. The diagnostic study is to be conducted three months before the end of commercial operation.

Food waste was excluded from the automated Cleannet system. The agreement also calls for removing existing food waste inlets and replacing them with volume-based food waste meters.

The more pressing issue is the cost going forward. Under the 2023 agreement, operating expenses after the handover are to be split equally between the Incheon Free Economic Zone Authority and the district office, while facility repair costs are to be divided 75-25.

If the system operates normally, the structure virtually guarantees a steady stream of substantial maintenance costs for years to come.

The question civic society is asking is straightforward: is the logic of "we already spent 153 billion won, so we have to run it" a dangerous one?

The most important trap to avoid in the Cleannet debate is letting money already spent drive future decisions.

The fact that 153 billion won has been spent is not, in itself, a reason to operate Cleannet. That money is gone — it is a sunk cost that cannot be recovered.

What is needed now is a clear-eyed assessment of how much more must be spent, whether normal operation is even achievable, and whether the system would outperform the current household waste collection method on both environmental and economic grounds.

The full costs of reviving Cleannet — facility repairs, parts replacement, electricity, maintenance staff and long-term pipe management — must also be made public.

An environmental comparison is equally necessary. Even if an automated collection system reduces vehicle traffic, the energy consumption and environmental burden of maintaining the infrastructure must be weighed alongside that benefit.

The existing household waste collection system must also be assessed comprehensively — factoring in vehicle use, labor costs, odor and waste accumulation issues, as well as its advantages.

The real question, ultimately, is not whether Cleannet is a good facility in the abstract, but what waste management system makes the most sense for Yeongjong in 2026.

The larger controversy centers on mandatory installation requirements for new buildings. Civic groups are particularly critical of demands that newly constructed buildings install Cleannet-related infrastructure.

Imposing a blanket installation requirement on new buildings while the existing system's operability and future management model remain unresolved would effectively extend the current problems to future residents and developers.

Adding construction costs for infrastructure whose actual use remains uncertain would, in all likelihood, pass those costs on to developers or incoming residents.

Civic groups are calling for a suspension of the blanket installation mandate for new buildings "until the feasibility of normal operation and the system's environmental and economic viability have been verified."

Another notable aspect of this dispute is that civic groups are not simply demanding that Cleannet be brought back online. They argue that all options — including partial operation or full closure — must remain on the table.

This is a critical point. In correcting the failures of a past project, "getting the facility running by any means" must not become the goal.

An independent body should objectively verify a full set of factors — a detailed facility inspection, the feasibility of normal operation, additional repair costs, annual operating expenses, environmental impact, a cost comparison with the existing collection system, and the long-term sustainability of the facility — before any conclusion is reached.

If normal operation proves feasible and the system demonstrates sufficient environmental and economic merit, it should run.

If it requires enormous additional investment or falls short on environmental and economic grounds, partial operation or closure must also be considered.

At the heart of the matter, civic groups said Monday, is accountability: who is responsible, and who will pay. They called for an audit and disciplinary action covering the entire lifecycle of the 153-billion-won project — from planning and budget execution through years of non-operation to the handover process — as well as an independent objective comparison and verification, a full review of the 2023 handover agreement, and a public deliberation process open to residents and environmental experts, with all options including closure and partial operation on the table.

They also warned that if satisfactory measures are not taken, they will pursue legal action, including filing for an official audit and initiating litigation.

The Yeongjong Cleannet dispute has grown beyond a question of waste management infrastructure. At stake simultaneously are why a massive public investment of 153 billion won failed, who will be held accountable for a facility that sat idle for over a decade, and what kind of waste management system the residents of Yeongjong will ultimately choose.

The fact that 153 billion won has already been spent cannot, by itself, justify pouring in yet more.

Civic groups put forward five demands: an audit of the entire 153-billion-won project covering planning, budget execution, the prolonged period of non-operation and the handover process; disciplinary action against those found responsible for policy misjudgments or management failures; an objective, scientific comparison and evaluation of Cleannet against the existing waste collection system by an independent body, assessing environmental impact, economic viability and operational efficiency; a ground-up review of the 2023 handover agreement, with a public deliberation process involving residents and environmental experts and all alternatives — including closure and partial operation — kept open; and a suspension of the blanket Cleannet installation mandate for new buildings until the feasibility of normal operation and the system's environmental and economic viability have been verified.