有關土壤及地下水污染土地所有人責任之研究

土壤及地下水污染整治法為國內近年來重大的環境立法，是以土壤及地下水污染後之整治作為其重點工作。污染者負責原則為最重要之保護環境之立法原則，但我國土污法，同時規定了土地關係人對於土地遭受污染時，必須負擔整治之義務。基於土壤及地下水污染具隱晦性、累積性及複雜等特性，俟污染被發現發現時，往往難以確認應負擔責任的污染行為人，或難以命污染行為人負擔相關之整治責任。然而，觀察土污法內容，立法將污染土地關係人納入責任主體範圍中，是否符合公平正義？另外，針對行政法院弱化行政機關對於地下水污染來源明確之認定趨勢，是否違反憲法保護民眾生命財產權之基本權利？本文藉由「文獻分析研究」與「實務個案分析」，省思我國污染土地所有人之責任規範，並提出土污法應有之責任規範及以下結論。在污染場址管制模式，在多數狀態責任人之選定上，原則上應考量「迅速且具實效性之危險除去」之裁量因素，而不一定需以污染行為人及潛在污染責任人作為優先對象。在土地所有人責任主體及內容方面，縱使土壤及地下水污染之防治係一重大公共利益，然對實為無辜被害人之財產權人課予土污法相關義務時，認為美國法制免責條款可作為我國修法參考。在土地所有人溯及既往之整治責任，本文認為得對於污染土地關係人課予溯及責任，惟僅限於對非屬受害人之污染土地關係人課予溯及責任。另在土地所有人責任之繼受方面，若土地所有人於繼受土地所有權時，已盡了所有適當的詢問，自然不需為原本土地上所存有之污染負擔整治責任。土地所有人整治責任之界線，以不超過50%之應進行整治之土地價值，及50%之整治費用為限，另一半整治費用由國家或透過基金分擔。最後，有關地下水污染來源明確之認定，不斷地向有利於主管機關推定恣意的方向傾斜感到憂心。在過去我國長久以來對污染物質之排放低度管制，間接造就了經濟發展，每一個人民事實上均享受著經濟開發的利益，應可適度地由國家撥付一定數額之款項充作土污基金，除符合負擔平等之合法性要求外，亦有利於污染土地整治之法目的之達成。

關鍵字

土壤及地下水污染整治法；整治責任；污染土地所有人；污染土地關係人； CERCLA ；污染來源明確

並列摘要

The Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act is one of the major environmental legislations in my country in recent years, focusing on remediation work after pollution occurs. The polluter-pays principle is the most important legislative principle for environmental protection. However, our country's Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act also stipulates that the person concerned with the land must be responsible for remediation when the land is polluted. Due to the characteristics of accumulation, delay and obscurity of soil and groundwater pollution, when the pollution is discovered and exposed, it is often difficult to identify the polluter, or it is difficult to order the polluter to bear the relevant remediation responsibilities. However, by observing the content of the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act, is it fair and just to legislate to include non-polluting persons who are related to the contaminated land in the scope of the subject of responsibility? In addition, in response to the administrative court’s weakening of the administrative agency’s clear identification of the source of groundwater pollution, does it violate the Constitution to protect people’s basic rights to life and property? This article uses " literature analysis and research" and "practical case analysis" to reflect on the responsibility norms of landowners for soil and groundwater pollution in our country, and proposes the responsibility norms of the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act and the following conclusions. In the pollution control site, the discretionary factor of "rapid and effective risk removal" should be considered in the selection of most state responsible persons. And It is not necessary to prioritize the polluters and the person potentially responsible for pollution. Regarding the subject and content of the landowner’s responsibility, even though the prevention and control of soil and groundwater pollution is a major public interest, when the property owners who are actually innocent victims are imposed obligations related to the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act, they consider that the CERCLA exemption clauses can be used as a reference for my country's amendments. In the retrospect of landowner's remediation responsibility, this article believes that the retrospective responsibility can be given to the contaminated land related person, but only to the contaminated land related person who is not a victim. In terms of the inheritance of the responsibility of the landowner, if the landowner has done all appropriate inquiries when inheriting the ownership of the land, it will naturally not be responsible for the remediation of the pollution on the original land. The boundary of the land owner’s remediation responsibility shall be no more than 50% of the value of the land to be renovated and no more than half of the remediation costs. The land owners who have not fulfilled their management responsibilities shall share the remediation costs with the state. Finally, with regard to the clear identification of the source of groundwater pollution, it is constantly tilting in favor of the competent authority to presume to be arbitrary. In the past, my country’s long-term low-level control of pollutant emissions indirectly contributed to economic development. Everyone actually enjoys the benefits of economic development, and it should be appropriate for the state to allocate a certain amount of money as a land pollution fund. In addition to meeting the legal requirements of equal burdens, it is also conducive to the achievement of the legal purpose of contaminated land remediation.

並列關鍵字

Soil and groundwater pollution remediation Act ； Landowners for Soil and ； Interested Party of Polluted land ； Remediation responsibility ； CERCLA ； Clear source of pollution