如何建構我國土壤及地下水污染整治法上的和解協議制度──以美國「全面性環境應變補償及責任法」的經驗為借鏡

How to Establish the Settlement Mecha-nism of the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act of Taiwan: Learning from the Experience of CERCLA Settlements of the U.S.

我國「土壤及地下水污染整治法」的立法，主要係參考美國「全面性環境應變補償及責任法」（Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA）。該法所建構之超級基金與責任機制的特色，在於其為環境責任機制帶來三大轉變，並從對立式的管制走向協商式的管制。然而土污法在我國的實踐，卻有相當大的差異。本文主旨聚焦在所謂「協商式管制」思維下，美國「超級基金修正及再授權法」（Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, SARA）在CERCLA新增之一個條文── 即第122條。闡述該條建立的「協議之成文法架構」（a statutory framework for settlement），其程序與內容之具體設計。對於污染責任人的認定、責任之確保和執行上，又如何發揮其功能。最後，探討CERCLA的和解協議制度，有哪些值得我國土污法借鏡之處，以及日後進行修法可能須面對的重要課題。

The legislation of “the Soil and Groundwater Pollution Remediation Act” (SGPRA) of Taiwan was influenced by “the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act” (CERCLA) of the U.S. It was argued that the characteristics of Superfund and its liability mechanism have shifted from the past concepts of environmental liability. It moved from antagonistic regulatory approach to negotiated regulatory approach. However, the reality of the implementation of SGPRA deviated from the practice of CERCLA. Focused on the negotiated regulatory approach, this article tried to explore CERCLA section 122, incorporated by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). This article expounded on the negotiation process and contents within this statutory framework for settlements among potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and the Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, it discussed the identification of the responsible PRPs, and how to ensure the liability could be fulfilled with these settlement agreements. Finally, this article also discussed what lessons we could learn from the CERCLA settlement mechanisms, including critical issues related to the amendments of SGPRA of Taiwan.