법적기준 이하 저수지 대상 비상대처계획(EAP) 수립 선정기준 연구 = Study on Establishment Selection Criteria of Emergency Action Plan(EAP) for Reservoir below Legal Standard

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구에서는 최근 기상이변의 영향 및 지진 발생과 저수지 노후화 등
으로 지속적으로 발생되고 있는 소규모 저수지 붕괴에 의한 재해 위험성
을 경감하고자 댐·저수지 EAP 수립 기준 이하 소규모 저수지를 대상으
로 EAP 수립 대상여부를 판단할 선정지표를 개발하였다.
기존의 EAP 수립 지침 검토, 과거 붕괴사례 분석, 관련분야 선행 연구
등을 검토 분석하여 저수용량, 제체높이, 경과연수, 호우인자 및 지진인자
를 포함하는 5개 선정지표를 선정하고 실무적용에 용이하게 하고자 선정
지표별 정량화를 실시하였다. 또한 개발된 선정지표별 저수지 붕괴와의
연관성을 파악하기 위해 과거 저수지 붕괴사례에 단일지표 및 두 개 이상
의 지표간의 중첩 정도를 파악하여 주요 지표 도출 및 관리그룹을 분류하
여 선정지표의 활용 방안을 제안하였다. 본 연구를 통해 얻어진 결과는
다음과 같다.
1) 과거 댐 저수지 붕괴사례를 조사한 결과, 붕괴의 대부분은 EAP 수립
법적기준 이하의 소규모 저수지에서 발생하였다. 붕괴의 주된 원인은 대
부분 내구연한 50년 이상으로 시설물의 노후화와 설계홍수량의 과소 산
정, 월류, 파이핑 및 누수 현상 등으로 파악되었다.
2) 댐·저수지 붕괴사례 원인 분석 결과와 국내외 EAP 수립 지침 관련
댐 하류부 피해에 영향을 주는 주요 요소들을 고려하여 법적 기준 이하
소규모 저수지에 대한 EAP 수립 선정지표는 저수용량, 제체높이, 경과연
수, 호우인자, 지진인자로 선정하고, 각 지표별 정량화를 통해 실무적용이
가능한 객관적 기준을 제시하였다.
3) EAP 수립 선정지표의 적용성을 파악하기 위해 과거 댐·저수지 붕
괴사례와 재해위험저수지를 대상으로 지표와의 연관성을 분석한 결과, 지
진인자, 호우인자, 지진 및 호우인자, 경과연수 지표 순으로 높은 연관성
을 나타내었다. 선정지표를 중첩 적용한 경우에는 호우인자+지진인자가
가장 높은 연관성을 나타내었다. 이는 집중호우, 태풍 등 호우인자, 시설
노후화에 따른 제체 누수, 우심피해 및 지진발생 위험지역에 저수지가 위
치한 지리적 요인 등이 복합적으로 영향을 미친 것으로 판단된다.
4) 재해위험 저수지를 대상으로 EAP 수립 대상 선정지표 중 저수지 붕
괴와 연관성이 높은 지진인자, 호우인자, 경과연수 지표 중 2개의 지표가
중첩된 경우에는 EAP 수립 대상 관찰그룹, 3개의 지표가 중첩된 경우에
는 EAP 수립 대상 검토그룹으로 분류하고, 각 그룹별로 재해 위험성에
대비하기 위한 EAP 수립 관련 관리 방향도 제시하였다.
5) EAP 수립 대상 선정지표인 저수용량, 제체높이, 지진인자, 호우인자,
경과연수 지표에 대한 가중치를 차등하여 재해위험 저수지의 관찰그룹
및 검토그룹별 EAP 수립 대상 시설물의 우선순위를 결정하여 제안하였
다.
본 연구의 결과는 기존의 EAP 수립 기준의 보완책으로 법적기준 이하
소규모 저수지의 EAP 수립 필요성 여부를 판단하는 기준으로 활용 가능
할 것으로 사료된다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study developed selection criteria for reservoirs, having below legal
standard storage capacity of 300,000㎥, to initiate the emergency action plan
(EAP) aimed at reducing the reservoirs failure risks. These reservoirs are not in
compliance with the current Korean EAP standards but have high failure
potentials caused by the recent extreme rainfall events and earthquakes. Various
factors such as reservoir storage capacity, embankment height, age, incidents of
heavy rainfalls and earthquakes were considered in the selection criteria based
on the existing guidelines for devising an EAP and examining the past
reservoir-failure cases. The selection criteria were applied to 67 previous
reservoir-failure cases and principal causes were identified. The earthquake
factor was the leading cause of reservoir-failure followed by heavy rainfall, a
combination of earthquake and heavy rainfall and age. A group of 354
reservoirs, designated by MOIS as having higher potential disaster risks, was
divided into observation and review groups based on the three criteria and their
weight in the reservoir-failure. The observation group comprised of reservoirs
when any of the two factors were the major causes; whereas, the review group
contained reservoirs when the three factors were the major causes of failure.
Each failure-causing factor was given a weight to determine the
high-risk-reservoir order in both groups. Based on the study results,
anticipatory monitoring and regular inspection should be made by professional
reservoir managers for the observation group, and necessity of establishing an
EAP for the review group should be assessed based on the downstream status
and financial budget.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목 차
• List of Table ········································································································ ⅲ
• List of Figure ······································································································ ⅳ
• 제 1 장 서 론 ···································································································· 1
• 1.1 연구 배경 및 필요성 ················································································· 1
• 1.2 연구 목적 및 연구 내용 ··········································································· 3
• 제 2 장 EAP 수립 정책 및 관련 연구 ·························································· 5
• 2.1 국외 EAP 수립 정책 ················································································· 5
• 2.2 국내 EAP 수립 정책 ················································································· 8
• 2.3 EAP 수립기준 및 관련 연구 ································································· 11
• 제 3 장 연구 방법 ···························································································· 19
• 3.1 EAP 수립 선정지표 개발 절차 ····························································· 19
• 3.2 EAP 수립 선정지표 개발 방법 ····························································· 20
• 제 4 장 댐·저수지 붕괴사례 원인 분석 ···················································· 23
• 4.1 국외 붕괴사례 ··························································································· 23
• 4.2 국내 붕괴사례 ··························································································· 26
• 제 5 장 EAP 수립 선정지표 개발 ································································ 29
• 5.1 기존 EAP 지침 검토 ··············································································· 29
• 5.2 EAP 수립 선정지표 개발 ······································································· 31
• 제 6 장 EAP 수립 선정지표 정량화 ···························································· 33
• 6.1‘저수용량’선정지표 ·············································································· 33
• 6.2‘제체높이’선정지표 ·············································································· 34
• 6.3‘경과연수’선정지표 ·············································································· 36
• 6.4‘호우인자’선정지표 ·············································································· 38
• 6.5‘지진인자’선정지표 ·············································································· 40
• 6.6 선정지표 정량화 결과 ············································································· 42
• 제 7 장 EAP 수립 대상 선정지표 적용성 분석 ······································ 43
• 7.1 선정지표의 적용 ······················································································· 43
• 7.2 선정지표의 중첩도 분석 ········································································· 50
• 7.3 선정지표의 활용 방안 제안 ··································································· 54
• 제 8 장 결 론 ···································································································· 57
• References ············································································································ 59
• Appendix ··············································································································· 62
• Abstract ················································································································· 75