고속도로 비점오염저감시설 번역(한국어 원본)본 연구의 목적은 고속도로 현장 특성별로 비점오염저감시설의 적용시험을 통해 적정 저감시설 선정과 적용방안 제시로 노면유출수에 의한 비점오염저감물질을 최소화하여 고속도로 주변 토양오염과 수질오염을 예방하고 환경친화적인 고속도로 건설에 기여하는 것이다. 전국토의 70%가 산지로 구성된 지형의 특성상 도로건설로 인한 환경훼손의 문제점이 지속적으로 제기되어와 향후 환경과 조화된 도로건설을 위해 환경영향평가 대상으로 비점오염원 설치신고 대상사업인 고속도로 건설에 대해 비점오염저감시설의 적정한 선정 및 효율적인 적용방안을 마련하고자 하였다. 고속도로는 분명 대상 배수유역과 집수면적의 여건 등 여러 가지 환경특성에 의해 현장이 상이할 수 있으며 세부적인 연구의 성과를 위해 현장별로 적용시험을 실시하였다. 고속도로의 현장분류는 비점오염원 최적관리지침에서 4ha 이하의 소유역에 설치하는 식생여과대와 소규모습지의 설치기준을 적용하여 집수면적이 4ha 이상인 지역은 집수면적이 넓은지역으로, 미만인 지역은 집수면적이 좁은지역으로 하였으며, 그 외 교량지역을 포함하여 3개 현장으로 분류하여 고속도로 모든 구간에서 적용 할 수 있도록 하였다. 현장별 적용시험을 위한 저감시설은 시설의 장⋅단점과 국내⋅외의 적용사례를 분석하여 선정하였으며, 선정된 저감시설은 TSS, BOD, COD, T-N, T-P의 5개 분석항목의 제거효율과 부지선정의 적합성, 경제성, 유지관리의 용이성 등의 평가요소를 고려하여 최종저감시설을 선정하였다. 제거효율분석결과 고속도로 주변 집수면적이 넓은지역은 자연형시설이 장치형시설보다 제거효율이 높았으며, 자연형시설의 경우 모든 저감시설이 만족하였고 우선순위는 침투저류지>침투도랑>인공습지>식생수로>식생여과대 순으로 나타났다. 집수면적이 좁은지역도 자연형시설이 장치형시설보다 제거효율이 높았으며, 자연형시설은 침투도랑>침투여과조>식생수로 순이며 교량지역은 침투저류조>여과형시설>식생여과대 순으로 제거효율이 분석되었다.
경제성은 설치비의 경우 현재 설치되었거나 설치계획 중인 저감시설에 대한 검토결과, 저감시설 1개소당 평균설치비는 자연형 시설 28,175천원, 장치형시설 45,743천원으로 분석되었으며, 유지관리비는 2년간의 비용을 종합하여 산정한 결과, 자연형시설은 1,254천원/ha·2년, 장치형시설은 3,946천원/ha·2년으로 조사되어, 자연형시설의 유지관리비는 장치형시설의 약 32% 수준으로 나타났다.
고속도로 비점오염저감시설의 적합한 선정을 위해 1단계 대상배수유역 선정, 2단계 저감시설 부지선정, 3단계 유지관리 용이성분석, 4단계 시설별 기술적 평가, 5단계 최종 시설선정의 5단계 평가안과 효율적 적용방안을 제시하여 환경친화적인 고속도로 건설에 기여하도록 하였다. |
고속도로 비점오염저감시설 번역(영어 번역본)The aim of this research is to perform pollution mitigation facility suitability test for each of the highways’ unique characteristics, thereby making optimal selections for mitigation facilities and propose implementation methodologies through which to minimize non-point pollution mitigation substances that in turn prevent pollution of soil and waterways around the highways and contribute to building environmentally friendly highways.
Korean territory is covered with mountains by more than 70%. Such a characteristic had consistently raised concerns about environmental damages caused by road constructions. So in order to build roads that are in balance with surrounding nature in the future, this research aimed to provide reasonable selection process and effective implementation of non-point pollution mitigation facility when building highways which are subject to mandatory non-point pollutant source installation report for the environmental impact evaluation.
Because highways have very different on-site characteristics due to environmental peculiarities and the drainage basins etc, in order to achieve detailed research results, exclusive suitability tests for each of the sites were carried out.
By applying the installation standard for installing vegetated filter strips at the sub-water sheds under 4ha guided by the optimal non-point pollutant management guide, highways were categorized into three types: big drainage basin (≧40,000m2), small drainage basin (≦40,000m2), and the one for bridge section, thereby covering all the sections of highways.
As for the mitigation facilities for the suitability tests, they were selected on the basis of case studies from both domestic and overseas and each facility’s merit. The selected facility underwent evaluation in terms of removal efficiency of TSS, BOD, COD, T-N, T-P, compatibility of site selection, economic feasibility, and maintenance convenience and the final mitigation facility was selected.
According to the removal efficiency result, the area of Big Drainage basin had higher removal efficiency with natural facility than that of the Manufactured Treatment Device. And as for the Natural Facility efficiency, every mitigation facilities was satisfactory, and the precedence order was as the following – Infiltration Basin>Infiltration Trench>Artificial Wetland>Grassed Swale>Grassed Filter. As for the small drainage basin area, the removal efficiency of the Natural Facility was higher than the Manufactured Treatment Device. In Natural Facility, removal efficiency ranking was in the order of Infiltration Trench>Infiltration Filter>Grassed Swale. The Manufactured Treatment Device, Filter Facility’s efficiency was higher than the Swirl-Type Facility and the removal efficiency order of bridge section was Infiltration Basin, Filter-Type Facility, and Grassed Swale.
After reviewing the mitigation facilities that had already been installed or under an installation plan, the analysis showed that the average installation cost per installed site was \28,175,000 for the Natural Facility and \45,743,000 for the Manufactured Treatment Device. As for the maintenance cost, the total cost over 2 years showed \1,254,000/ha·two year for the Natural Facility, and \3,946,000/ha·two year for the Manufactured Treatment Device, so the Natural Facility’s maintenance cost was 32% of the Manufactured Treatment Device.
To make appropriate selection of non-point pollution mitigation facility of highways, this study will aim to contribute to building more environmentally friendly highways by proposing the selection processes of 5 stages – 1st step of selection the target drainage basin, 2nd step of selecting the land for the mitigation facility, 3rd step of analyzing the ease of maintenance, 4th step of technical evaluation of each installation and the 5th step of evaluation points and effective implementation methods. |
