我國水污染防治法管制措施之檢討 – 以風險管理之運用為中心

A Study on Regulatory Measures of the Water Pollution Control Act of Taiwan - From the Point of View of Risk Management

溫欽閔(Qin-Min Wen)

指導教授 ： 傅玲靜

中原大學/法學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2015年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201500970

摘要

環境永續與經濟發展間的平衡一直是全球各國努力的方向，在面對科學技術的發展與社會結構的改變，風險社會的態樣也越來越複雜，因此如何與風險共生並對於環境污染行為進行有效管理，則成為各國必須面對的核心課題。而我國近年來事業違法排放廢水的情形層出不窮，因此本文即以民國102年高雄日月光K7廠違法排放廢水造成後勁溪嚴重污染的案件作為楔子，並蒐集相關司法實務的判決，藉此觀察水污染管制措施是否能夠達到污染防治的功能。面對事業在取得行政機關核發之排放許可證後，仍發生違反排放廢水的情形，則在環境立法政策上，是否已將具體體現預防原則之風險管理精神落實在水污染管制措施的法制設計中，實不無疑問。因此本文即以風險管理為軸心，對於水污染防治法之相關制度設計進行研究。
我國水污染管制措施主要以放流水標準及排放許可證為主，於風險評估及風險管理之概念下，二者的功能都在於發揮風險預防的作用。換言之，水污染管制應藉由訂定放流水標準作為界定風險與危險間的門檻及界線，行政機關再以核發排放許可證作為實際管制事業排放廢水的管制依據。然而，在我國水污染防治的實務上，放流水標準及排放許可證卻無法發揮預防原則所欲彰顯的精神。究其原因，係水污染防治法在法規範設計上並未清楚界定放流水標準及排放許可證的定位及兩者間的關係，也未能體現風險評估及風險管理所強調之整合性及個案性的思維模式，導致放流水標準與排放許可證在實務運作上彼此脫鈎，因而造成管制功能效果不彰，也造成行政機關與司法機關認定爭議事實與適用法律時呈現非常混亂的局面。
本文借鏡美國清潔水法之規定，探究美國法制於水污染管制設計與我國法制之差異，並試圖從中找出解決我國環境管制失靈的問題。美國清潔水法對於水污染管制的設計，是以排放標準為基礎，藉由核發排放許可證以具體管制事業排放廢水之情形。而在管制措施的定位及彼此的關聯性上，非常清楚彰顯風險評估與風險管理之概念。換言之，排放標準之訂定，除了考量自然科學的知識外，亦參酌水體用途、污染控制技術等因素，依不同水體特性，兼運用社會科學知識訂定具個案性之管制標準。而排放許可證雖以排放標準為基礎，但更考量污染排放口附近的生態或水體用途等因素，於排放許可證中記載更為嚴格之限值，藉此對於不同情況的排放污染者之行為為不同密度的管制。而行政機關在審查是否核發排放許可證時不僅為整合性及個案性之審查，亦要求取得排放許可證之事業必須依據特殊情況履行特定之義務。可見美國清潔水在污染管制措施的設計上，與我國水污染防治法有相當程度上的差異。
雖然我國環境基本法部分規定也意識到風險管理之重要性，但檢視我國水污染防治法之規範設計，不論是在修法前或是民國94年修法後，風險管理之精神仍未受到我國立法者重視。對於我國在環境議題上面臨到的法制困境，本文認為在水污染防治之法規設計上，亦應回歸風險管理的精神，運用風險評估、風險溝通與風險管理，除了以科學的專業知識為基礎訂定放流水標準外，同時更應透過資訊交流、立場交換的過程填補相關專業資訊之不足，並針對不同水體訂定個案性的管制標準。而在核發排發許可證時，更應綜合考量各種層面的因素，選擇最適當之管理方法。透過整合性及個案性的審查，體現預防原則的精神，才能從法制面突破目前我國在水污染管制上的困境。

關鍵字

預防原則 ； 風險評估 ； 風險管理 ； 整合型風險管理 ； 水污染防治法 ； 環境基本法 ； 美國清潔水法 ； 放流水標準 ； 排放許可證

並列摘要

Making a balance between environmental sustainability and economic development is the pursuit of the goal of all around the world, and the pattern of risk society is more and more complicated while facing the changes of scientific technology and social structure. How to live with risk and to effectively control the environmental pollution become to the core lesson for each countries. Due to the flood of illegal wastewater discharge in recent years, this study begins with the example of the illegal wastewater discharge of ASE Inc. K7 plant in Kaohsiung, which caused a serious pollution in Houjin River, and collect the judgment relative to the judicial practices to observe if the water pollution regulatory achieves the pollution prevention. However, the industry obtains the emission permits from administrative agencies, illegal wastewater discharge still happens. In the environmental legislative policy, it is doubt that the spirit of risk management of the precautionary principle is fulfilled in the regulatory designing of water pollution regulatory measures. For this reason, this study is based on risk management to analyze the regulatory formulating of Water Pollution Control Act.
The water pollution regulatory measures in Taiwan is focus on the effluent standard and the emission permits, which are characterized by risk prevention. In other words, water pollution should have a effluent standard as the boundary between risk and danger, and then the administrative agencies issue the emission permits as the basis to control the industrial wastewater discharge. However, in the practice of Water Pollution Control Act, the spirit of the precautionary principle couldn’t be found in the effluent standard and the emission permits. It’s because that neither are the effluent standard and the emission allowance not clearly defined the location and the relationship in the regulatory formulating, and nor are the integration and the localization emphasized in risk assess and risk management not well performed, which caused the effluent standard and the emission permits uncoupled in the practice, the ineffectiveness of the regulatory, and chaos of recognizing the issues and applicable law of administrative agencies and judicial organ.
This study is under the Clean Water Act in America to discuss the formulation differences of water pollution control between Taiwan and America, and attempt to solve to problem of environment control. The construction of water pollution control of Clean Water Act in America is based on effluent standard and practically control the industrial water discharge via getting the permission. With the regulatory measures located and the relationship between these two acts, the concept of risk assess and risk management is clearly performed. In other words, to set a effluent standard, natural science knowledge, the use of water and pollution control technology are all needed. According to the characteristics of water, the regulatory standard is formulated with localization by using the social sciences. Even the emission permits are in accordance with effluent standard, the ecology and water near polluted emission point are concerned. And emission permits have strict limited value to control the actions of emission polluter in different situation with different density. While the administrative agencies issue the emission permits with integration and localization, the industry of getting emission permits is requested to fulfill the certain obligations with a basis on certain situation. It is obviously that there’s a big gap between America and Taiwan in formulation of Water Pollution Control Act.
Although some parts of regulation of National Basic Environment Act in Taiwan have the notice of the importance of risk management, seeing the norm design of Water Pollution Control Act, the spirit of risk management is still not taken seriously, no matter before or after amending the law in 2015. For the dilemma of formulating the law with environmental issues, this study proposes that the spirit of risk management should be emphasized in formulating regulation of Water Pollution Control Act, and using risk assess, risk communicating and risk management. While making the effluent standard with science knowledge, the lack of professional information should be filled with information and position exchange ,and the regulatory standard should be made for different water with localization. To issue the permits, various factors in different levels should be all included and choosing the most appropriate management is required. With the review of integration and localization, the spirit of precautionary principle is performed, so that the dilemma of water pollution regulatory could be broke through from the existed law.

並列關鍵字

Precautionary Principle ； Risk Assessment ； Risk Management ； Enterprise Risk Management ； Water Pollution Control Act ； Basic Environment Act ； American Clean Water Act ； Effluent Standard ； Emission Permits

參考文獻

鄧家駒，風險管理，第4版，2005年。

宋明哲，現代風險管理，第5版，2001年。

許惠悰，風險評估與風險管理，第2版，2006年。

牛惠之，預防原則之研究－國際環境法處理欠缺科學根據之環境風險議題之努力與爭議，台大法學論叢，第34卷第3期，2005年5月，頁1-71。

洪德欽，預防原則歐盟化之研究，東吳政治學報，第29卷第2期，2011年6月，頁1-56。