在傳統的環境管制決策模型裡，科學評估被視為是中立、理性客觀之 分析技術，因此不僅是環境行政程序設計之核心，往往是政策正當性來 源。然而在面對未知的環境風險時，行政機關在規則制訂、標準制訂與風 險評估等制度建構上， 正面臨著行動遭受各方質疑的「正當性」 （legitimacy）危機。這危機來自於行政決策的結構性弱點：行政決策依 賴與等待專家共識以證成決策正當性；專家因著科學不確定性與等待更多 證據論證，而給予保守的答案。本文分析認為以「被管制者所提出的資 訊」作為決策基礎的程序設計，不僅使得資訊來源及類型偏狹，同時也將 問題建構與調查，甚至詮釋權讓渡給被管制者。因此在管制政策當中，被 管制者能夠利用此一結構弱點，運用「科學不確定性」來癱瘓決策程序， 導致行政僵局的產生。 本文以2010 年7 月所發生的六輕工安大火事件為案例。大火事件 後，地方陸續傳出有水產養殖生物，如吳郭魚、文蛤、雛鴨等大量死亡的 農業損失情事，使六輕營運後所造成的環境影響與健康風險問題，受到社 會高度矚目。環保署因而要求台塑提出「環境影響調查報告書」進行審查，直到兩年後台塑提出因應對策，環評程序才告一段落。本文透過多重資料來源的蒐集，包括環評專案小組會議、專家會議等相關之會議紀錄、相關事件的剪報資料，以及相關會議的參與觀察紀錄等，進行分析闡釋相關制度設計背後的預設與侷限。

Scientific assessment in the traditional environment regulation policy is generally regarded as a rational technique. Therefore, scientific assessment has been not only a foundation of environmental administration procedure, but also a resource of legitimacy. On the contrary, the environmental regulation procedure is confronted by a legitimacy crisis because of the process design that is based on the main information provided by polluters. The process design demands that polluters should investigate environmental impact. However, it not only means that the right of environmental problem framing and interpretation is transferred to polluters, but it also damages the credibility of environmental information and policy decisions. On the other hand, the environmental administration defines “scientific assessment” narrowly in that it does not consider the characteristics and limit of “Regulatory Science” and excludes other forms of knowledge from administrative procedure. That could lead to loss of multiple sources of knowledge, and weakened regulations while the polluter uses “Science Uncertainty” as a defense. Finally, the situation brings out the possibility of a deadlocked decision. Taking the examples of the environmental impact assessment of a fire accident in the sixth naphtha cracking project in July, 2010, the study analyzes the hidden scientific framework and limitations of the administrative procedure. The finding is that the policy decision relying on the information from a single source, especially from polluters, leads to a shrinking of the government’s role and erodes the legitimacy of decisions. In order to strengthen the foundation of legitimacy, the administration should rebuild an open administrative procedure to foster socially robust knowledge.