일본에서의 화학물질관리의 정책과 법제

초록

This article focuses on introducing policies and legislation concerning chemical substances management in Japan. Japan has a number of laws for the management of chemicals. ‘The Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc’, known as ‘Kashinho’, and ‘The Act on Confirmation, etc. of Release Amounts of Specific Chemical Substances in the Environment and Promotion of Improvements to the Management Thereof’, known as ‘Kakanho’, are the main legislation on chemicals. Section 2 reviews Kashinho that prescribes information collection and risk assessment. Kashinho, which was enacted in 1973, consists of It consists of three parts. The Act introduced a notification and assessment system for ‘new’ substances being put on the market. But in risk assessment for existing ‘old’ substances already on the market, Kashinho seeks a ‘prioritisation’ approach. According to Kashinho, industry is required to provide data such as estimated quantities and other information (regardless of hazard), which was not required before the amendment. Then, based on such information submitted by industry, the government will make a list of ‘Priority assessment chemical substances’. When a substance falls into the this category, industry is required to conduct a hazard assessment, and is subject to further risk assessment by the government. The principle of industry responsibility for providing information was not explicitly stated in Kashinho. Under the Act, industry’s informational burden is much smaller than that required by REACH. In Kashinho, the regulation of the chemical substances depends on whether the substances are persistent, are highly bioaccumulative, or have a risk of long-term toxicity to humans, etc.. The chemical substance is regulated as a ‘Class I specified chemical substances’ and a ‘Class II specified chemical substances’. The first characteristic of this law is that the precautionary principle is applied. Since there is scientific uncertainty, measures to prohibit the manufacture and import of new chemicals uniformly can be justified, and this is the practice of the precautionary principle. Certain matters should also be reported in ‘Monitoring chemical substances, which long-term toxicity is unclear. Both European law prior to REACH regulation and Japanese law suffered from the same problem—the lack of safety data on existing ‘old’ chemicals already on the market. However, the Japanese amendment did not exactly follow the principle of industry responsibility under REACH. This is the second feature. The Japanese amendment system stipulates a ‘prioritisation’ approach, and it is still the government’s responsibility to demand that industries submit additional data concerning the prioritised substances. Also, it is the government, not industry, which is responsible for conducting risk assessment. REACH’s ideas were not transplanted entirely. Section 3 reviews Kakanho which was established in 1999. Kakanho has the PRTR and the SDS. The PRTR is a system that requires industry to estimate the amounts of chemical substances released and transferred in waste, and to report the data, and that the government then makes the data public. Under the SDS, a industry shall provide information on the properties and handling of ‘Designated chemical substance’ to the party, when industry transfers or provides a substance to another industry. PRTR aims to establish the background of risk communication. SDS aims the safety of workers. It can contribute to reduce the environmental risks from chemical substances. However, there are problems in the current system. However, there are problems in the current system. For example, information on individual establishments is not subject to publication, the amount of storage or handling is not subject to reporting, labeling is not a legal obligation, and sanctions for not reporting are weak. This paper concludes with brief reference to the Korean 'Whapyongbeyb' and 'Whaguanbeyb' in response to the Japanese Kashinho and Kakanho. In Korea, it is necessary to expand the scope of registration of chemical substances, but it is necessary to improve the system to reduce the burden of companies in the assessment and registration. Safety must be ensured. At the same time, however, we must also take into account the reality of the company. In the PRTR and SDS, it is necessary to operate the system to make the purpose of the system effective. For example, it is necessary to expand information disclosure, promote risk communication, and monitor the amount of emission reduction.

키워드