<Anchor>



As wearing a mask becomes a daily routine, the amount of plastic packaging that is thrown away every day is considerable.

However, it turns out that most of the mask packaging materials do not need to be recycled under the current law.

Some companies are claiming to be reimbursed for their previously unknown recycling levies.



Reporter Park Chan-beom covered the story.



<Reporter> This



is a quasi-drug mask sold on the market.



There is a lot of packaging one by one, so a lot of packaging materials are thrown away.



[Kim Min-ji / Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul: I usually wear a mask once a day.

(Packaging materials) are collected in plastic and then collected separately.]



Citizens are discharging separately, but a change has occurred in the recycling process.



This is because there are blind spots in the Enforcement Decree of the Resource Recycling Act.



For quasi-drugs, if the content does not exceed 30g, the packaging material is exempted from the recycling obligation.



I bought 30 masks for each company that are sold at pharmacies or convenience stores.



Let's measure the weight of the contents and packaging together.



Except for the case where there are 10 sheets in the packaging like this, the total weight of the rest of the masks does not exceed 30g.



This means that there are no legal issues with mask manufacturers using non-recyclable packaging.



The shortcomings of this law have recently begun to be known in the industry.



There are concerns about excessive packaging that focuses on designs that do not care about recycling.



[Recycled packaging material company representative: (mask company) does not think about recycling at all.

I'm more interested in the design side, whether it's a pretty packaging...

.]



The spark also sprang up with the producer responsible recycling system, that is, the 'EPR contribution'.



Companies using packaging materials subject to recycling obligations are required to pay a share to support recycling companies under this scheme.



However, there is no need to pay a share for the mask packaging material.



Some mask makers are demanding a refund of their contributions.



[Flood Su-yeol/Director of Resource Circulation Socio-Economic Research Institute: Quantity of (mask and packaging materials) comes in as a recycling company, but recycling subsidies are not supported, so there may be a gap between the system and the field.]



The Korea Environment Corporation and the Packaging Material Mutual Aid Association Accordingly, the EPR contribution has no choice but to be returned and the amount of the refund has been calculated.



It seems necessary to supplement the enforcement ordinance that goes against the citizens' awareness of environmental protection.



(Video coverage: Choi Jun-sik, video editing: Kim Jong-mi, VJ: Kim Jong-gap)