EPA-103-GA11-03-A236

103

780 千元

2014/06/20

2014/12/19

張訓嘉

土污基管會

劉元鼎

立言法律事務所

土壤及地下水

非法棄置、應變必要措施、英國環境保護法第二部分

illegal dumping, the necessary response actions, PART IIA of Environmental Protection Act

劉北芳

02-33224999#15

liubefang@lexpert.com.tw

我國如台中現有石業案及屏東赤山巖案等非法棄置場址，常常面臨著棄置場址應如何適用「廢棄物清理法」或「土壤及地下水污染整治法」加以處理之法律適用以及主管機關間權限劃分之爭議問題。 由於非法棄置場址形成之主因，往往為廢棄物違反廢棄物清理法之規定所造成，故在邏輯上和論理上，均應由廢棄物清理法擔負起第一線之處理責任較為合理。日本法對於棄置場址之處理，即係由主管機關依「關於廢棄物之處理及清除（掃）法律」採取相關之改善命令及措施命令等緊急應變必要措施，包括查證計畫之執行，待廢棄物之問題解決後，始就遭棄置物污染之土壤或地下水依「土壤污染對策法」或「水質污濁防止法」之規定進行整治。是以，日本法原則上關於非法棄置場址，並無廢清法或土污法之權限劃分爭議問題。 英國法則與我國法和日本法有著截然不同之體系，係區分棄置場址之污染為「運作中工廠」所造成，抑或「廢棄工廠過去污染行為」所導致，分別適用「IPPC整合型之污染預防及控制」之廢清法體系，和「英國環境保護法第二部分」之土污法體系加以處理。因此，英國法下之重點，將會落在場址污染為現在抑或過去所致，以及廢棄物類型之區分上，而與我國法之爭議問題大相逕庭。 我國法之體系與日本法體系雷同，故法理上亦應以廢清法優先加以適用處理。然而於適用廢清法時，可能有法源不足或資源不足之困境，此有賴廢清法於修法時，納入應變必要措施之法源並建置事業廢棄物處理基金加以應對，充足主管機關可資運用之武器，以達成有效清除、處理廢棄物，改善環境衛生，維護國民健康之廢清法法旨。就此部分，宜密切注意「資源循環利用法草案」之立法動態。

非法棄置、應變必要措施、英國環境保護法第二部分

EPA-103-GA11-03-A236.pdf

23MB

2015/2/1 上午 12:00:00

In dealing with the hazardous industrial waste in illegal dumping sites in Taiwan, such as Hsien-Yu Stone Industry at Taichung and Red Mountain Rock at Pingtung, the choice-of-law issue concerning the application of Waste Disposal Act and the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act has frequently arisen. Since illegal dumping sites are generally caused by the violation against Waste Disposal Act, it is reasonable, logically and theoretically, that this Act shall take the priority to step in and assume the liability to deal with the problems caused. Under Japanese law, the pertinent authorities, in dealing with illegal dumping sites, generally apply the Act relating to the disposal and Cleaning of Waste to take emergency responses, such as the issuing of improvement/amelioration order or response order, including the performance of verification plan etc. After the waste being disposed of, the Soil Contamination Response Act or the Water contamination Prevention Act shall step in to remediate the soil or water contamination respectively. Therefore, in Japan, concerning the illegal dumping site, there is no such issue as the overlapping controls or division of authority between two pertinent authorities. The English law has a quite different legal system from that of Taiwan law or Japanese law. It makes division between the current and the historic contamination of land, and the IPPC regulations and the PART IIA of Environmental Protection Act shall apply respectively. Therefore, the key points in English law are to distinguish between the current and the historic contamination and to divide the waste categories, quite different from the issues under Taiwan law. Since our legal system is similar to that of Japan, theoretically we shall apply in priority the Waste Disposal Act. However, in applying the said Act, we might feel that the legal or financial sources are not enough to deal with illegal dumping site problems. To resolve such problems, we may revise the Waste Disposal Act and add some provisions concerning the necessary response actions and the set-up of fund for industrial waste disposal, so as to provide the competent authorities with necessary weapons for efficient clean-up or disposal of wastes, improve the environment hygiene and protect public health, as per the legislative purposes announced by the Waste Disposal Act. In this respect, we may pay more attention to the legislative development of the Draft Recycling Use of Resources Act.

illegal dumping, the necessary response actions, PART IIA of Environmental Protection Act