환경부의 화학물질관리법, 화학물질등록 및 평가에 관한 법률, 고용노동부의 산업안전보건법의 화학물질 관련 내용 비교
Comparison between the Chemical Management Contents of Laws Pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor
윤충식(서울대학교); 함승헌(서울대학교); 박지훈(서울대학교); 김선주(서울대학교); 이상아(서울대학교); 이권섭(산업안전보건연구원); 박동욱(한국방송통신대학교)
40권 5호, 331~345쪽
초록
Objectives: The exponential growth of chemicals, an area of high concern in developed countries like the US (i.e., the Gore Initiative) and in the EU (i.e., REACH), as well as recent chemical accidents in Korea, have provoked nationwide concerns and resultant legal enforcement. This study aims to compare the laws of the Ministry of Environment (the Chemical Substances Control Act (CSCA), Act on the Registration and Evaluation, etc. of Chemical Substances(ARECS)) with those of the Ministry of the Employment and Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)). Methods: Each law pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor was downloaded from the official legal information system (www.law.go.kr). The objectives of each law and the major contents related to chemical management were compared and summarized. Results: The CSCA and the ARECS are focused on the protection of people and the environment, while the OSHA relates to the protection of workers. The right to know of people and workers has been reinforced. The former two laws emphasize prevention, but the OSHA contains both preventive and post-accident measures. The role of the Ministry of Employment was reinforced with the promulgation of the CSCA and ARECS, which contain regulations such as adjacent area impact evaluation, risk control planning, chemical statistical survey and construction and operation of information, provision of risk control plans, response to chemical accidents and registration of chemical substances. Conclusion: We found that the three laws discussed here have several similar clauses designed to protect people and the environment from risks that may be caused by the use of chemicals, even though there are some differences among them in terms of objectives and contents. This review concluded that several clauses that can be regarded as double regulation should be unified in order to minimize the waste of government administrative resources and socio-economic losses.
Abstract
Objectives: The exponential growth of chemicals, an area of high concern in developed countries like the US (i.e., the Gore Initiative) and in the EU (i.e., REACH), as well as recent chemical accidents in Korea, have provoked nationwide concerns and resultant legal enforcement. This study aims to compare the laws of the Ministry of Environment (the Chemical Substances Control Act (CSCA), Act on the Registration and Evaluation, etc. of Chemical Substances(ARECS)) with those of the Ministry of the Employment and Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)). Methods: Each law pertaining to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of the Employment and Labor was downloaded from the official legal information system (www.law.go.kr). The objectives of each law and the major contents related to chemical management were compared and summarized. Results: The CSCA and the ARECS are focused on the protection of people and the environment, while the OSHA relates to the protection of workers. The right to know of people and workers has been reinforced. The former two laws emphasize prevention, but the OSHA contains both preventive and post-accident measures. The role of the Ministry of Employment was reinforced with the promulgation of the CSCA and ARECS, which contain regulations such as adjacent area impact evaluation, risk control planning, chemical statistical survey and construction and operation of information, provision of risk control plans, response to chemical accidents and registration of chemical substances. Conclusion: We found that the three laws discussed here have several similar clauses designed to protect people and the environment from risks that may be caused by the use of chemicals, even though there are some differences among them in terms of objectives and contents. This review concluded that several clauses that can be regarded as double regulation should be unified in order to minimize the waste of government administrative resources and socio-economic losses.
- 발행기관:
- 한국환경보건학회
- 분류:
- 환경보건학