我國土壤與地下水污染整治法（土污法）規範之責任主體，為污染行為人與污染土地關係人，兩者連帶負整治污染與（侵權行為）損害賠償之責。土污法第二條第十二款明列污染行為人之三種行為態樣為【1】非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物之人。【2】仲介或容許非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物之人。【3】未依法令規定清理污染物之人。然而，其他條文或相關行政辦法並未對於污染行為人中，所稱「仲介」或「容許」污染者加以定義。除此之外，回收業者進行資源回收，間接致土壤污染之行為，是否該當仲介者責任，不論從法條文義或環境政策考量出發，仍有待解釋。倘若因為欠缺明確之仲介者定義與統一之違法性判斷標準，以及受限於立法政策上擴大責任主體之要求，而造成撒網式地認定責任主體，或殺雞儆猴式之責任分擔，將有違公平正義原則。因此本文將輔以美國CERCLA施行二十年來，就土壤污染責任歸屬，以及有關仲介者責任建立之統一判斷標準，其法院判決之經驗提出探討，漸次就我國土污法仲介者解釋問題，提出解決之道。 本文第一部份前言簡介土污法立法緣由，與本文問題提出。第二部份介紹我國土污法架構，法律機制。第三部份簡述美國法規，輔以美國最高法院CERCLA案件判解介紹，探討相關之責任主體問題。第四部分則基於污染控制法規一致性考量、仲介者行為之違法程度評價，以及「污染者付費原則」與獎勵回收政策之平衡等角度，評析我國仲介者責任之規定。第四部份提出結論。

　　　　　The Soil and Underground Water Pollution Remediation Act of the Republic of China (hereinafter SUWPRA) provides that, the liable parties for soil pollution in clued the one who conducted the pollution and the related persons associated with the polluted land. Such parties should be liable for the expenses and damages incurred due to remediation of the polluted soil and for the purpose of restitution. According to the definition of Potential Responsible Parties (PPPs) explicitly set forth in the same Law, "the parties who conducted the pollution" shall include those who (i) illegally discharged, leaked, contaminated, or disposed of pollutant; (ii) arranged for or approved illegal discharging, leaking, contaminating, or disposing of pollutant; and (iii) has violated the regulations relevant laws regulations for disposing of pollutant. The relevant laws and regulations, however, do not provide a clear definition of either the party who "arranged" for illegal disposal or "approved" such a conduct. Moreover, SUWPA does not immune the arranger's liability for the operator of recycling business. As a consequence, the over-extensive standards for defining liable parties and for contributing liability will violate the equity and justice principles due to the vague definition of the term "arranger", the lack of uniform legality criteria the legislative intent to expand the scope of liability. Therefore, this Article will explore the possibilities of establishing a set of judgment standards based on the practice of the U.S. courts in this regard, especially the principles established in CERCLA cases. In addition, the author will work out to establishing a clear-cut standard for practice and interpretation of the current SUWPRA. The first part of this Article will introduce the legislative background of SUWPRA and the related issues to be discussed therein. The second part will focus on the structure of SUWPRA as well as the legal mechanisms thereof. The third part is reviews of the U.S. legislation and landmark cases' decisions of U.S. courts concerning this issue. The fourth part will analyze the arranger's liabilities based on an overall consideration of the consistency of pollution control legislation, the legality of recycler's conduct, the balance of "Polluter Pays Principle" and the environmental policy for encouraging recycling. The forgoing contents then will be concluded in the fifth part.