EPA-103-E103-02-237

103

3,880 千元

2014/09/04

2015/07/31

林鎮洋教授

綜計處

楊智凱

國立臺北科技大學

環境影響評估

環境影響評估法第8條、對環境有重大影響之虞、判斷基準

Environmental Impact Assessment Act Article 8, The likelihood of significant impact on the environment, Judgement guideline

高仁川；陳起鳳

郭玲惠

洪淑惠

02-27712171#2664

d96541011@ntu.edu.tw

　　本計畫目的在探討環境影響評估法第8條「對環境有重大影響之虞」的要件，應如何認定？環評法施行細則第19條8款情形，藉由環評委員會專業判斷後，行政法院採取實質審查，而認為有判斷瑕疵或判斷濫用之情形。法院於開庭過程建議環境保護署提出判斷基準，以作為審判參考。故本計畫整理我國環評法立法緣由，參考國外作法，彙整歷來認定應繼續進行二階環評之考量因素。從158件二階環評案件中，發現過去審查的主要考量理由，多屬於案件對環境資源或環境特性有顯著不利影響者以及使當地環境顯著逾越環境品質標準或超過當地環境涵容能力者，但無法歸納出具體的量化判斷基準。另從各級行政法院共計44則以上判決，發現法院共通見解多強調：正當法律程序原則、避免不當剝奪當地居民參與表達意見的權益、應釐清審查結論附款與行政程序法第93條第一項附款的關係、應根據會議紀錄作成結論並附具理由。總合歸納上述「環評審查結論」與「判決審視分析」的檢視結果，最後提出共通與個別判斷基準的具體內涵。惟需注意本計畫所提判斷基準為通案原則，至於量化基準因涉及科學驗證有其困難。建議未來以新修訂的環評法施行細則表列規模為量化基礎，再以本計畫判斷基準做為參考條件。

環境影響評估法第8條、對環境有重大影響之虞、判斷基準

EPA-103-E103-02-237.pdf

9MB

2015/10/1 上午 12:00:00

　　This project aims at exploring how to apply Environmental Impact Assessment Act Article 8, especially the requirement provides that “the likelihood of significant impact on the environment”. Although Article 19 of the Administrative Regulation Related to the Application of Environmental Impact Assessment Act provides 8 specific situations, the courts take hard look doctrine to review those judgements made by expert committee in the EIA process. The courts often argue that the EIA resolutions are illegal because they contain judgement flaws or abuse of judgement. The concepts of “the likelihood of significant impact on the environment” are so vague that the administrative courts suggest the Environmental Protection Agency should propose or establish a clear identification method to make those requirements more concrete than before. Therefore, this project made a comprehensive survey, including the legislation history of EIA Act, similar Acts of foreign countries, EIA reports done by developers, EIA resolutions, and judicial judgements. 　　This project analyzed 158 cases relating to whether the second phase of EIA is necessary to be done. It was found that most of their considerations included significantly adverse influences on environmental resources or environmental characteristics, obviously exceeded the environmental quality standards and exceeded tolerant capacity of local environment. However, it is difficult to generalize a conclusion from a quantitative perspective. On the other hand, this project also reviewed over 44 judgements done by administrative courts. It was found that many judges emphasized the due process of law, well-reasoned, the procedural rights of local citizens to participate the EIA, the complicated relations between EIA resolutions and section 1 article 93 of the Administrative Procedural Act, and whether the resolutions of EIA were based on the record of the meeting. After summarizing all the analysis coming from reviewing EIA resolutions and judgements done by administrative courts, this project established common and specific criteria for general application of the EIA cases. Because quantitative factors are difficult to comply with all scientific verification requirements, this project suggested that it may be proper to adopt the bases set by the amendment of Administrative Regulation of EIA firstly and refer to the criteria secondly. 　　Based on pragmatic research methods, many dialogues between legal professors and scientific scholars and opinions collected from the public, this project establish “CRITERIA Related to the Likelihood of Significant Impact on the Environment for Judgement of EIA Committee. The outcome of this project may become an effective guideline for the EPA, and experts of EIA Committee. The response of the administrative courts is noteworthy.

Environmental Impact Assessment Act Article 8, The likelihood of significant impact on the environment, Judgement guideline