【參考文章1：危險之境，出路何在？】
August 1, 2000 (環境資訊中心網路報)
http://news.ngo.org.tw/reply/reply-00080101.htm
危險之境 — 出路何在？ (作者：邱育慈)
[ 前言 ]
六０年代，美國生態作家瑞秋卡森對抗以殺蟲劑（DDT）為主軸而糾葛的政商利益，甚至還必需背上許多被保守人士冠上的莫須有的罪名，如邪教教主或同性戀。但是這場奮戰，雖然使得美國政府隨後立法禁用DDT，人類在數十年之後仍然無法完全清除其殘留累積在環境中，甚至是隨食物鏈進入人體的化學毒性。
相較於瑞秋卡森，二十世紀末的台灣人，對於因為非法傾倒有害事業廢棄物而逐漸惡化的環境，是不是顯得太不在乎了？
[ 有毒溶劑何處去？ ]
台灣因為非法傾倒有害事業廢棄物所導致的嚴重後果，因為七月十四日曝光的高雄縣旗山溪毒水事件，再度引起廣泛討論。
一百噸倒在高屏溪上游的有害化學廢溶劑，讓大高雄地區將近三百萬自來水用戶飽受缺水之苦。五天後，自來水來了，民眾對政府的信心卻找回不來。
究竟是什麼污染了水源？新聞報導中陌生的化學名詞令南部人膽顫心驚。專家說，水不能喝，因為二甲苯會破壞中樞神經及導致肝腎病變。專家說，這種被污染的水，甚至連用來洗手洗澡都不安全，因為有害化學物質會穿透皮膚也會經由呼吸道滲進人體。
但是，中北部民眾並沒有因南台灣毒水事件而感同身受。直到檢察官循線追查此案後說，高屏溪上游的罪魁禍首一百噸有毒廢溶劑，只是昇利廢棄物處理公司所傾倒的一小部分而已。在一九九七年八月到今年六月間，長興化工所交給昇利的一萬三千五百噸的有害廢溶劑，都倒掉了。
倒在哪裡？在大甲溪，大肚溪，桃園大園，台北縣隱密的山谷，不知名的小溪，在這裡，在那裡，在、、、，在這整座島嶼。
檢調人員還發現，除了長興化工的廢溶劑，昇利公司還傾倒了另外四千噸其他公司製造的有毒溶劑。可怕的是，沒人知道全台灣到底有多少人幹過類似昇利這樣缺德的事。
[ 清除處理業 --- 乏人問津？ ]
環保署資料顯示，台灣年產一百四十七萬公噸的有害事業廢棄物，大約只有四成得到妥善處理，而這現象被歸因於廢棄物清除處理業者的嚴重不足。此外，環保署及工業局官員都承認，很難確實掌握實際數量，因為製造廠商及清除業者都曾經在網上申報及六聯單系統中，謊報數量以規避查核。
合法廢棄物清除處理業者的嚴重不足，提供了不肖業者賺大錢的生存空間。根據民生報報導，一公噸處理及清運費大約要八千元，以一輛二十五噸的大貨車滿載，委託清運者需付二十萬元，每趟車純利在十九萬元以上。即使打對折「相互優惠」，每次傾倒就有十萬元的利潤，一天倒三趟，一個月九十趟，就有淨賺九百萬元。
這讓環保人士憂心忡忡，他們認為，許多河川都被嚴重污染了，同時他們也質疑核發廢棄物清除處理業者執照過程的可信度。
生態保育聯盟的林聖崇說，他說技術應該不是問題，因為外國都能夠處理。他忿忿地說，「這麼好賺的生意，為什麼這麼多年來只有少數幾家壟斷？其實很清楚，只要黨政關係好，黑道關係好，隨處亂倒就沒有問題，不會被抓，就算被抓到也沒有問題!」。
[ 管理制度 --- 自美移植果真適用？ ]
部分環保人士早在七０年代，就為台灣以犧牲環境而造就經濟奇蹟的政策擔心。當時政府鼓勵中小企業的投資，中小型的工廠因而興起，但是業者通常不願意花太多資金在污染防制設備上。再說，當時也沒有太嚴格的環保相關法令去規範這些幫台灣賺大錢的工業。
台灣環保法令的制訂，大部分是移植自美國，以不同種類的污染（空氣、水、土壤）為防治的分野。但是，對於污染物生產源頭的管制卻是力有未逮。於是，每年所新產生的毒性化學物質，就為管制系統造成極大的壓力。
「現在怎麼辦？除了大聲疾呼工業減廢之外，從美國移植進來的這套管制辦法也該重新檢討。」工業局黃孝信科長這樣認為，他解釋，台灣其實並不如美國社會那般高度法治化，而台灣也不像美國那般高度地方自治。
縣市政府受制於地方派系的壓力已經是不爭的事實，關心環保的人士就不諱言指出，許多非法傾倒事件，部分與領有執照的廢棄物清除處理業者有關。
環保署督察大隊北區大隊長吳天基說，「我們不禁想質疑地方政府官員操守問題，當他們在核發證照時，是否真的確實瞭解這些業者處理廢棄物的能力了呢？」他說，環保稽查員在新成立的環保警察協助之下，從去年七月到今年六月間，就移送了四百人。
後來事實證明，這些人部分與領有執照的廢棄物清除處理業者有關連。
[ 觀念問題 --- 科技萬靈丹？ ]
科技專家也想幫忙為非法傾倒所苦的台灣找到一條出路。他們認為，現行對事業廢棄物進行中間處理再固化掩埋的方式，並不是最有效且划算的科技，因為隨後所導致的土壤及地下水污染，將會演變成更棘手的問題。
原子能委員會的核能研究所副所長林立夫說，「類似以密閉掩埋場所形成的隔離作用，並不能解決所有問題。有害事業廢棄物的毒性必須去除、無害化之後，讓可利用物質重新回到自然界的循環當中。」
林立夫說，許多西方先進國家都已經採用電漿焚化技術來處理有害事業廢棄物，甚至，連核廢料也在處理之列。這種被西方業界公認為最有效處理有害事業廢棄物的電漿技術，連垃圾焚化爐中所殘餘的飛灰及灰渣，都可以處理。只是，台灣卻因為它的高成本而望之卻步。
目前環保署把飛灰及灰渣與一般廢棄物混合降低毒性後，再固化掩埋，當作垃圾場的覆土。
中央大學環境工程教授王鯤生說，如果環保署將掩埋場土度取得費用，以及對付民眾抗爭的成本都算進去，電漿技術事實上比傳統技術更經濟。
不過，環保署廢管處副處長何舜琴說，在任何新技術尚未正式被政府所採用之前，焚化爐的飛灰及灰渣還是會以的傳統方式來處理。
其實，反焚化爐人士相當不滿於現行這種固化掩埋有害事業廢棄物的方式。因其對環境造成的負面影響，例如長期累積在環境中的持久性有機污染物 (Persistent Organic Pollutants 簡稱 POPs)，將難以消除。
不過，也有專家指出，減少生產及消費才是減少廢棄物的根本之道。成功大學資源工程學系教授蔡敏行說，工業革命之後人們被刺激消費，只為了維持工業界的大量生產，但現在已經嘗到苦果。
他說，「你買了一件流行衣服，穿了幾次把它丟了，它就變成一個必須耗費經濟成本及人力來處理的廢棄物。」
蔡敏行主張，生產者應該盡量避免生產，如果不得不生產，必須考慮如何減廢。對於廢棄物也應抱著如何再生利用的態度，直到不能用為止。到時，才是談處理技術的時候，像是電漿 (plasma)，高溫分解 (pyrolysis)，或者固化掩埋。他說，以資源角度來看，較少生產，就製造較少的廢棄物，這也會減少非法傾倒問題。
[ 無處可逃 ]
針對非法傾倒而導致的高雄縣旗山溪毒水事件，台灣區域發展研究院副院長饒睿青說，毒性物質有穩定而不易分解的特性，將會經由食物鏈進入人體而逐漸累積其中，而其長期的生物性累積所造成的人體健康危害將不容輕忽。他說，北極熊生活在從來沒有戴奧辛排放污染的地區，體內還被發現含有戴奧辛，就是食物鏈傳遞毒性物質的最佳例證。
擁有環境毒物學博士學位，也曾在美國國家衛生部 (National Institutes of Health) 工作過的饒睿青，二十年前在幫助政府處理多氯聯苯 (Polychlorinated biphenyl, 簡稱 PCBs) 中毒事件時，就試圖影響大眾重視有毒化學物質在人體累積的嚴重性。當時，至少一千五百人因為不肖商人製造的食用油中所含的多氯聯苯而中毒。
多氯聯苯正是在西方學界，名列對人體嚴重威脅的持久性有機污染物之一。
但是，二十年後，住在這塊島上的台灣人民，仍然在持久性有機污染物的威脅之下。不同的是，不肖業者污染的不再是販賣地區有限的食用油，而是生活在這塊島嶼的人們所無法逃開的「環境」。
持久性有機污染物順著河川流入海洋污染水中生物，隨著地下水的流動滲入土壤，藉由漂浮流動的空氣而覆蓋所有蔬果作物，讓人類及所有生物，無處可逃。
[ 冰山一角 ]
不過，民進黨立法委員張清芳認為，因為管制有害廢溶濟不當所導致的高雄旗山溪毒水事件只是冰山一角，許多該列管的有害化學物質都還沒被政府重視。
根據張清芳國會辦公室的調查，全台灣目前已經任意棄置一億一千萬支日光燈管。而被隨意排放的，還有年產約一至兩萬公噸的鋼鐵業酸洗廢液，年產兩千公噸的相片沖洗業者所用的洗像廢液，以及一千五百公噸化學週期表中三五族產生的化學廢棄物，如砷化鎵及磷化銦等。
張清芳說。「為什麼政府沒有要求專業的廢棄物清除處理公司來處理這些有害事業廢棄物？」-ENDIT-
(原作英文報導 Toxic chemical dumping cases tip of the iceberg ; 詳見網址
http://taipeitimes.com/news/2000/07/29/story/0000045586 ;
英文台北時報二０００年七月二十九日第四版)
Toxic chemical dumping cases tip of the iceberg
WHAT A WASTE: The Kaoping River dumping incident has focussed attention on the disposal of dangerous chemicals into the environment
By Chiu Yu-Tzu
STAFF REPORTER
The Kaoping River (高屏溪) incident that was reported to police in southern Taiwan on July 14 has heightened awareness of the problems caused by illegal dumping.
Three truck drivers hired by a licensed waste-handler had, on the previous day, dumped 100 tonnes of toxic chemical solvents, including xylene (二甲苯), which polluted the drinking water to three million residents in the Kaohsiung metropolitan area.
The 23 million residents of Taiwan did not realize that they had been living in communities at risk until prosecutors investigating the environmental crime announced that the toxic solvents dumped in the Kaoping River was just one incident among many.
Prosecutors said that about 13,500 tonnes of such toxic waste generated by Eternal Chemical Company (長興化工) had been dumped secretly by transportation contractors hired by the waste handler Shengli (昇利) since 1997.
Prosecutors added that another 4,000 tonnes of toxic solvents produced by other companies were also dumped illegally by Shengli.
Prosecutors said that Shengli was involved in illegal dumping "everywhere" including Taichung, Taoyuan and Taipei counties and in central and northern Taiwan. But it was unclear how many other waste-handlers were still doing so.
According to the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA), only 40 percent of the 1.47 million tonnes of the hazardous industrial waste generated annually in Taiwan was properly treated, due to the scarcity of legal waste-handlers.
Officials said, however, that it was difficult to trace all industrial waste because some companies and waste-handlers gave the EPA inaccurate information.
Currently, neither the EPA nor the Industrial Development Bureau has been able to trace all the missing hazardous waste.
According to sources, truck drivers dumping hazardous waste illegally can command huge fees. They charge NT$8,000 for each tonne of hazardous waste, which means that a driver dumping three truckloads a day could make as much as NT$9 million a month.
Environmentalists, worried that the main rivers in central and northern Taiwan might have been heavily polluted, questioned the value of licensing waste-handlers.
"If the business was so lucrative, why was it monopolized by a limited number of waste-handlers?" said Lin Sheng-chung (林聖崇), head of Taiwan Greenpeace.
Lin said that the key point has nothing to do with technology, which is easily imported from advanced countries.
"It's obvious that you cannot be licensed unless you have good relations with both political figures and local organized crime," Lin said.
[ Paydirt ]
Concerns about an uncontrolled toxic waste crisis started to surface in environmental circles in the 1970s, when Taiwan's economic miracle began, and during which environmental concerns were sacrificed for the pursuit of profit.
The government encouraged the establishment of both small and medium-sized chemical companies, owned by investors who were unwilling to spend money on pollution prevention equipment. At the same time, environmentally-centered regulations on these profiteering industries were lax.
Much of the environmental legislation drafted in Taiwan -- which has been largely transplanted from the US -- introduced pollution control and waste management regulations on the basis of the kind of pollution -- air, water or land. The legislation lacked measures for dealing with pollutants at their source.
The number of new toxic chemicals entering the market each year placed enormous pressure on Taiwan's regulatory system, which was unable to contain the range of hazards represented by these new chemicals.
"What can we do now? While we are urging industry to reduce waste as much as they can, regulations implanted from the US might have to be reviewed to take the conditions in Taiwan into account," said Huang Hsiao-hsin (黃孝信), an official from the Industrial Development Bureau of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, adding that Taiwan is less highly regulated than the US.
"Local governments in Taiwan have less autonomy than those in the US," Huang said, adding that local officials occasionally came under pressure from local factions.
Environmental inspectors found that some illegal dumping cases were actually related to registered waste-handlers licensed by local governments.
"We suspect that the local governments did not carry out a comprehensive review of the applicants' abilities to treat waste," said Wu Tien-chi (吳天基), head of the EPA's North Region Branch Inspection Bureau (督察大隊北區大隊).
Wu said that inspectors, in cooperation with the environmental police, had brought 400 environmental criminals, hired by both legal and illegal waste handlers, to justice since last July.
[ What's the problem? ]
Scientists want to provide solutions, in terms of technology, to the problem of illegal dumping. They say existing landfill-oriented industrial waste management policies will eventually cause problems, such as water and soil contamination.
"Segregation cannot solve the problem thoroughly enough. Such hazardous waste has to be detoxified and re-enter the natural cycle of nature," said Lin Li-fu (林立夫), deputy director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research (INER), at the Atomic Energy Council.
Lin said that one of the new ways of treating industrial waste -- plasma incineration technology -- had been adopted widely in developed countries to treat industrial waste, including radioactive material.
"It has been recognized by Western scientists as the most efficient way of dealing with hazardous waste, such as the bottom ash of waste incinerators. But Taiwan seems to fight against this trend in waste treatment because of its high cost," Lin said.
Ho Soon-ching (何舜琴), deputy director general of the EPA's Bureau of Solid Waste Management, said that toxic waste collected from incinerators is still mixed with regular waste to reduce its toxicity.
The technology used by the EPA to treat toxic waste annoys environmentalists, who claim that it causes irreparable environmental damage, such as the accumulation of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
"If the EPA considers the combined cost of building landfills and dealing with local opposition, it may find that plasma technology is in fact cheaper and more effective," said Wang Kuen-sheng (王鯤生), environmental engineering expert at National Central University.
[ The way to go ]
Some scientists say reducing production is the basic solution.
"You create something, use it and dump it. It becomes waste awaiting appropriate treatment, incurring both financial and labor costs," said Professor Tsai Min-shing (蔡敏行), an energy expert at National Cheng Kung University.
Tsai said that since the Industrial Revolution, consumerism has been stimulated in order to sustain mass production -- and now people are facing the consequences.
In terms of natural resources, Tsai said, less production is the best way of minimizing waste and illegal dumping.
Regin Jao (饒睿青), vice president of the Taiwan Regional Development Institute (台灣區域發展研究院), said the illegal dumping case in Kaohsiung would have long-term biological consequences.
"Toxic chemicals will eventually enter the human body through the food chain and accumulate there for a long time," said Jao, a toxicologist who was in charge of one of the worst chemical contamination cases in Taiwan's history two decades ago, when 1,500 people were poisoned by polychlorinated biphenyl (多氯聯苯), a chemical injected by dishonest merchants into cooking oil.
Yet the people of Taiwan are still threatened by POPs accumulating in the environment because of illegal dumping of toxic waste.
DPP legislator Chang Ching-fang (張清芳) said the Kaohsiung water pollution case was only the tip of the iceberg.
According to his survey, more than 110 million tubes of fluorescent lights and 20,000 tonnes of waste acid solvents generated by the steel industry, both containing toxic chemicals, were dumped on the island without proper treatment.
"No waste handler has been appointed to dispose of such waste," Chang said.
-ENDIT-
