DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Improvement for Port Placement of Response Vessel

방제선 배치 항만의 개선 방안

  • Jang, Duck-Jong (Department of Maritime Police Science, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Dae-Jin (Training Center of Ship Operation, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Woo-Young (Department of Maritime Police Science, Chonnam National University)
  • 장덕종 (전남대학교 수산해양대학 해양경찰학과) ;
  • 김대진 (전남대학교 선박실습센터) ;
  • 김우영 (전남대학교 수산해양대학 해양경찰학과)
  • Received : 2017.11.21
  • Accepted : 2017.12.28
  • Published : 2017.12.31

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate port use and the distribution of risk factors in 15 major ports in Korea, delineating the risk of each port after classifying the ports into four risk groups based on estimated risks. The placement of response vessels is then analyzed accordingly. Based on the results, danger was estimated to be especially high in ports where large-scale petrochemical facilities are located, such as Yeosu Gwangyang ports (1.85), Ulsan port (1.33) and Daesan port (1.25). The ports showing the next highest degree of danger were Pusan (0.95) and Incheon (0.83), which have significant vessel traffic, followed by Mokpo (0.71) and Jeju (0.49), which expanded their port facilities recently and saw an increase in large vessel traffic. Next is Masan (0.44), for which many fishing permits in the vicinity. When the relative ratios of each port were graded based on the Yeosu Gwangyang Ports, which showed the highest risk values, and risk groups were classified into four levels, the highest risk groups were Yeosu Gwangyang, Ulsan, Daesan and Pusan, with Incheon, Mokpo, Jeju, and Masan following. Pyeongtaek Dangjin, Pohang, Gunsan, and Donghae Mukho were in the mid-range danger group, and the low risk groups were Samcheonpo, Okgye, and Changsungpo. Among these, all response vessel placement ports specified by current law were above the mid-range risk groups. However, we can see that ports newly included in mid-range risk group, such as Mokpo, Jeju, and Donghae Mukho, were excluded from the pollution response vessel placement system. Therefore, to prepare for marine pollution accidents these three ports should be designated as additional response vessel placement ports.

현행 방제선 배치 항만의 합리적인 방안을 모색하고자 국내 주요 항만을 대상으로 이용실태와 위험요인의 분포현황을 조사하여 각 항만별 위험도를 평가하고 위험도 산정 값을 기준으로 전체 항만을 4단계의 위험군으로 분류하여 방제선 배치 항만의 현실화를 추구하였다. 그 결과 항만의 위험도는 대규모 석유화학 산업시설이 위치하고 있는 여수 광양항(1.85), 울산항(1.33), 대산항(1.25)이 특히 높게 나타나고, 선박 통항량이 많은 부산항(0.95), 인천항(0.83)과 최근 항만시설의 확충으로 대형선 통항량이 증가한 목포항(0.71)과 제주항(0.49), 주변에 어업권 허가건수가 많은 마산항(0.44) 순서로 나타났다. 또한, 위험도 값이 가장 높게 나타난 여수 광양항을 기준으로 각 항만의 상대적 비율을 등급화하여 위험군을 4단계로 구분했을 때 최고위험군은 여수 광양항, 울산항, 대산항, 부산항이고, 고위험군은 인천항, 목포항, 제주항, 마산항이며, 중위험군은 평택 당진항, 포항항, 군산항, 동해 묵호항, 저위험군은 삼천포항, 옥계항, 장승포항으로 분류되었다. 이 중 현행 법률상 방제선 배치항만은 모두 중위험군 이상의 항만이며 중위험군으로 새롭게 평가되는 목포항, 제주항, 동해 묵호항은 제외되어 있다. 따라서 이들 3개 항만을 방제선 배치항만으로 새롭게 지정하여 기름오염사고에 대비할 필요가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Cho, S. J., D. J. Kim and K. S. Choi(2013), Hazardous and Noxious Substances(HNS) Risk Assessment and Accident Prevention Measures on Domestic Marine Transportation, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 145-154. https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2013.19.2.145
  2. Ha, M. J. and J. H. Yun(2013), A Study on the Setting of Regional Oil Recovery Capacity On Water in Korea, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 606-611. https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2013.19.6.606
  3. Lee, J. Y., K. W. Chun and J. H. Kim(2014), A Study on Cause Analysis of Marine Pollution Accidents from Ship in the Domestic Sea, The Korean Society of Marine Environment & Energy, 2014 Autumn symposium, pp. 87-87.
  4. Mok, J. Y.(2001), National Oil Pollution Response System : Current Issues and Policy Recommendation, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, Vol 7, No 2, pp. 105-121.
  5. KESIS(2015), 2014-2040 Oil Demand Prospect, http://www.kesis.net/sub/sub_0001_03.jsp.
  6. Kim, D. J. and S. Y. Kim(2008), A Methodology for Risk Analysis on Ship Accidents at Port Area, Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol 59, pp. 105-121.
  7. Kim, K. S.(2013), Overview of Major Oil Spill at Sea and Details of Various Response Actions 1. Number and Volume of Marine Oil Spills in Korea and in the World, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 129-137. https://doi.org/10.7837/kosomes.2013.19.2.129
  8. Kim, Y. D., Y. B. Seok, N. S. Cheol and S. Y. Tack (2016), A Study on system of entrusting the placement or installation of pollution response vessels, etc., The Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, 2016 Spring symposium, pp. 130-131.
  9. KOEM(2016), Planing Research to Advancement Planning of pollution Accident Response System, p. 264.
  10. KSA(2017), Maritime Statistic, 2017, pp. 27-28.