臺灣地區由於社會經濟成長與都市化建設發展，重大公共工程與民間建築工程每年產生大量之營建剩餘土石方與混合物。依營建棄填土資訊系統統計，國內營建剩餘土石方產生量經由產出量扣除需填量後，平均每年仍須處理約為1,500萬立方公尺之土石方。此外，經合法申請拆除之營建混合物數量據估計每年約有1,100多萬公噸，若加上新建施工過程以及其他建築室內裝修拆除、違章建築拆除、政府徵收拆除、自然滅失建築拆除、以及非法擅自拆除等所產生之混合物，則其數量將更為可觀，每年產生如此龐大之營建副產物 ，從消極的角度思考理應當妥善處理，如以更積極之面像思維，更應該朝向資源有效再利用。再者，臺灣地區地狹人稠，營建副產物再生利用不但可促進廢棄物減量，達成資源永續利用目標，並可減緩國內營建副產物任意堆置、有限的掩埋空間、及資源不足等問題，為達此目的勢必應有健全之回收管理及相關法規制度。 因國內營建副產物處理與再利用法規未臻完善，本研究為健全國內營建剩餘土石方及混合物管理之法規及制度，實地訪查北、中、南、東部之現況，深入探討國內營建副產物相關法規制度所遭遇之問題癥結點，將其彙整成三大議題分別為；(一)因目前缺乏法規或以行政程序無法解決之問題、(二)可以以行政程序解決之問題、(三)一般性之問題；為解決其(一)之問題訂定專責法規是有其必要性，本研究借鏡先進國家之作法、配合國內相關法規體系及管理方式，考量其實務可操作性，藉由專家學者之訪談，逕而提出三種法制化之模式，探討各模式間之法規面、執行面、市場面、立法時程等面像之優缺點；在不與其它法規競合、不影響市場生態及各執行單位接受度最高的條件下，確立訂定「營建剩餘土石方處理與再利用」之專責法規為最佳可行之方案。藉此以供政府將來擬訂相關政策及專責法條之參考依據，以健全營建副產物之管理法規及制度，解決目前國內營建剩餘土石方及混合物處理與再利用所遭遇之瓶頸，以符合國家推動綠營建政策及永續發展之目的。 Feasibility Study of Passing a Special Law for Treatment and Recycling of Residual soil and CD&W ABSTRACT Under the global development of sustainable construction, the government in Taiwan devotes more and more efforts for the proper treatment and recycling of construction residual soil and CD&W. Currently in Taiwan the CD&W is governed under the Waste Clean Act. But construction residual soil is governed only by a set of guidelines. The objective of this research is to study if it is necessary to pass a special law for treatment and recycling of residual soil and CD&W in Taiwan? Or just by the law of Waste Clean Act and Resource Recycling Act will be enough? If it is necessary to pass a special law, how will its scope and contents different from the Waste Clean Act? Literature reviews are conducted and several expert forums are held to discuss the pros and cons of three alternatives, that is (1) passing a special law to include only construction residual soil; (2) passing a special law to include both residual soil and CD&W; (3) no special law. In addition, questionnaire is sent to all the related parties, including all the local government authorities in Taiwan, the academics, and the industry, to get their opinions on this issue. Finally, the pros and cons of the three alternatives are analyzed from the aspects of legal, execution, politics, and market. It is concluded by this study that the alternative one, to pass a special law to include only construction residual soil but with a leniency of allowing mix of residual soil and CD&W, works better and is most feasible under the circumstances.
