河北省再生资源回收管理规定
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-06-26 16:16:55 浏览:9628
来源:法律资料网
河北省再生资源回收管理规定
河北省人民政府
河北省人民政府令
〔2011〕第16号
《河北省再生资源回收管理规定》已经2011年12月28日省政府第99次常务会议通过，现予公布，自2012年2月1日起施行。
代省长 张庆伟
二○一一年十二月二十九日
河北省再生资源回收管理规定
第一条 为加强再生资源回收管理，节约资源，保护环境，促进经济与社会可持续发展，根据国家有关法律、法规的规定，结合本省实际，制定本规定。
第二条 本规定所称再生资源，是指在社会生产和生活消费过程中产生的，已经失去原有全部或者部分使用价值，经过回收、加工处理，能够使其重新获得使用价值的废弃物，包括废旧金属、废旧机电设备及其零部件、废旧电器电子产品、废纸、废棉、废橡胶、废塑料、废玻璃等。
第三条 在本省行政区域内从事再生资源回收经营活动的单位和个人，应当遵守本规定。
法律、法规、规章对再生资源回收管理另有规定的，从其规定。
第四条 县级以上人民政府商务部门负责本行政区域内的再生资源回收管理工作。
设区的市、县级人民政府商务部门可以委托供销合作社等事业机构负责再生资源回收管理的具体工作。
县级以上人民政府有关部门应当按各自职责，做好再生资源回收管理的相关工作。
第五条 鼓励以环境无害化方式回收处理再生资源，开展再生资源回收处理的科学研究、技术开发和推广应用。
第六条 县级以上人民政府商务部门应当会同发展和改革等有关部门，根据本地经济发展水平、人口密度、环境和资源等情况，制定再生资源回收体系建设规划。
第七条 从事再生资源回收经营活动的单位和个人（以下统称再生资源回收经营者）应当领取营业执照，并自领取营业执照之日起30日内，持营业执照、税务登记证、法定代表人或者负责人身份证原件、复印件向登记注册地工商行政管理部门的同级商务部门或者商务部门委托的机构备案。备案事项变更的，应当自变更之日起30日内办理变更手续。
回收废旧金属的再生资源回收经营者除向商务部门备案外，还应当自领取营业执照之日起15日内，向经营场所所在地的县级公安机关备案。备案事项变更的，应当自变更之日起15日内办理变更手续。
第八条 再生资源回收经营者可以采取上门回收、流动回收、固定地点回收等方式回收再生资源。
第九条 设立再生资源固定回收站（点）、分拣中心、集散市场应当符合国家有关规范。
第十条 新建居住区的规划设计，应当按再生资源回收体系建设规划预留社区回收站(点)所需场地。
已经建成的居住区，由业主委员会或者业主委托的物业服务企业按再生资源回收体系建设规划，提供社区回收站(点)所需场地。不能提供回收站（点）所需场地的，可以设立流动回收站（点）。
设立回收站(点)不得影响社区环境和社区容貌。
第十一条 回收生产性废旧金属应当由具有生产性废旧金属回收经营范围的再生资源回收单位进行。
生产性废旧金属是指用于建筑、铁路、通讯、电力、水利、油田、市政设施及其他生产领域，已经失去原有全部或者部分使用价值的金属材料和金属制品。
第十二条 再生资源回收单位回收生产性废旧金属，应当如实登记废旧金属的名称、数量、规格、新旧程度等情况。出售人为单位的，应当查验出售单位开具的证明，登记出售单位名称、地址和经办人姓名、身份证号码；出售人为个人的，应当登记出售人姓名、住址、身份证号码。
登记资料保存期限不得少于2年。
第十三条 再生资源回收经营者从事流动回收活动时，不得在机关、学校、医院、部队和居住区内高声唱收，噪声扰民，影响单位和居民的正常工作、生活。
第十四条 再生资源回收经营者在回收再生资源过程中发现有公安机关通报寻查的赃物或者有赃物嫌疑的物品时，应当立即向公安机关报告。
第十五条 再生资源回收经营者在收集、储存、运输、加工、处理再生资源过程中应当遵守国家相关污染防治标准和技术规范，不得随意对废弃物进行焚烧，不得污染环境。
第十六条 再生资源回收经营者不得回收下列物品：
（一）无报废证明的井盖、井蓖等市政公用设施;
（二）枪支、弹药、易燃、易爆、剧毒、放射性等各种危险物品；
（三）无合法来源证明的铁路、公路、油田、供电、电信、通讯、矿山、水利、测量和消防设施等专用器材；
（四）公安机关通报寻查的赃物或者有赃物嫌疑的物品；
（五）法律、法规禁止回收的其他物品。
第十七条 再生资源回收行业协会应当加强行业自律，规范行业行为，维护会员和行业利益，组织人员培训，开展信息咨询等服务，并受行业主管部门委托，定期发布再生资源回收状况信息，进行再生资源回收行业统计、调查。
再生资源回收行业协会不得违反国家和省有关规定收取费用。
第十八条 县级以上人民政府商务部门和有关部门工作人员在再生资源回收管理工作中，滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊的，依法给予处分；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
第十九条 违反本规定，未取得营业执照擅自从事再生资源回收经营活动的，由县级以上工商行政管理部门或者城市管理行政执法部门依照有关规定予以处罚。
第二十条 违反本规定第七条第一款规定，未按规定期限备案的，由县级以上人民政府商务部门给予警告，责令限期改正；逾期不改正的，视情节轻重，对再生资源回收单位处500元以上2000元以下罚款，对个人处50元以上200元以下罚款。
第二十一条 违反本规定第七条第二款、第十二条、第十四条、第十六条规定的，由公安机关依法处罚。
第二十二条 本规定自2012年2月1日起施行。
关于限制进口类废料环境管理有关问题的通知
国家环境保护总局
国家环境保护总局文件
环发[2003]69号
关于限制进口类废料环境管理有关问题的通知
各省、自治区、直辖市环境保护局（厅）:
为进一步加强限制进口的可用作原料的废物（以下简称“进口废物”）的环境管理，规范进口审批，强化后期监督管理，现就有关问题通知如下：
一、进一步规范审批程序
1、自2003年7月1日起，需要加工利用进口废物的，由加工利用单位向所在地地级市环保部门提出年度进口废物申请，由地级市环保局初审后转报省级环保局（厅）。省级环保局（厅）应当考查各加工利用单位的年加工能力和实际生产状况，提出各加工利用单位年度审批总量的建议,报我局核准。环保部门不再受理贸易（代理）单位的申请。
2、我局在核准的年度进口废物总量内，根据具体情况一次或多次签发进口废物批准证书。
3、加工利用单位每次申请进口废物批准证书，均须经省级环保局（厅）预审后报我局。
其中，进口废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机的加工利用单位，必须在申请材料中详细说明已进口废物拆解后各种成份的去向，并附省级环保局（厅）的核实和预审意见。
4、2003年7月1日以后签发的进口废物批准证书，其进口登记表填满后，该份进口废物批准证书自行失效，各省级环保局（厅）不再增加附页。
二、进一步加强对废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机加工利用单位的监督管理
1、省级环保局（厅）应对废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机的定点加工利用单位（以下简称“定点单位”）进行监督考核，并于每年12月1日之前将下一年度定点单位名单报我局批准。
2、定点单位必须建立生产台帐制度，记录每批入厂废物的种类、数量以及拆解后各种成份的去向，包括接收单位的名称、详细地址、负责人，不可利用残余物的处置方法等。在环保部门现场检查时，定点单位应当如实提供台帐。
3、定点单位必须将进口的废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机彻底拆解，对拆解过程中产生的残余物必须按照国家有关规定和标准进行处置。
4、各地环保部门应当会同有关部门取缔未取得定点资格的进口废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机加工利用单位。
5、各地环保部门应当协助政府引导废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机加工利用单位相对集中布局。
各级环保部门要进一步完善审批和后期监管措施，特别是对从事进口废五金电器、废电线电缆和废电机加工利用的定点单位，要掌握其实际进口、加工以及残余物处置情况。
此前我局发布的有关文件与本通知不一致的，以本通知为准。自本通知发布之日起，《关于调整进口第七类废物加工利用单位审批程序的通知》（环发[2001]186号）废止。
二○○三年四月二十二日
Risks and challenges of the EU expansion
周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)
I. Introduction
For several years now the European Union is discussing a possible enlargement, because several European countries have applied for membership in the EU. These are especially the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that have clearly turned towards the west since the collapse of the iron curtain. These countries are Bulgaria, the Baltic countries Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary.
In addition Turkey, Cyprus and Malta are trying for quite some time already to join the EU. These application are not to be accepted without any further deliberation because they do bring along some risks and the consequences are hard to distinguish therefore these countries are not very expected joining the European Union in the near future and will therefore not be included in the following evaluation.
II. Risks and challenges
If we wants to evaluate the risks and challenges of an upcoming enlargement of the EU, we should first take into account experiences gained during previous expansion which were to some extent comparable. Here the southern expansion from 1986 should be mentioned where two economically pathetic countries sought admission to the then European Community. The admission procedure of these two candidates, being Spain and Portugal, were lengthy and considered very problem bearing. Especially the amount of produce that would add to the already existing agricultural over-production of the Community was seen to be a problem since it would increase the load on the European budget.
But seen from a global economical perspective the joining of Spain and Portugal was overall positive for the EC and the two countries, although Spain struggled with a further rise of unemployment and disparities within the Community were further amplified.
The disparities within the Union will most certainly increase when it comes to an eastern expansion, but the agricultural problem will not be an issue, because the candidates have not got their focus on agriculture, already because of their communist heritage which focused on industry rather than on agriculture or the tertiary sector.
In case of the approaching expansion towards Eastern Europe the Union will have to resolve several problems, the most severe being without any doubt the financial one that will go along with the extension, estimated to be ?5 - ?6 billion annually, just for the technologically underdeveloped agriculture in the new member states.
The financial problem will also lead to a temporary discontent among the population of the existing members, since the financial load on the countries will cause budget cuts because the new members will undoubtedly belong to the payees rather than the payers. Especially the Mediterranean members, for instance Italy, Spain etc. fear cuts in their subsidies particularly the agricultural ones, and agriculture is already making up the biggest part of the EU′s budget.
Of course it is also to be questioned whether with the joining of economically weak countries the economies of the "richer" members are not weakened.
What should be taken into consideration as well is the impact the joining will have on the population of the candidates, especially considering the rights they will gain when they are citizens of the European community. They do then have the right to settle and work anywhere within the community, this could lead to a large amount of people pouring into the old member countries trying to seek work there and make their living. And since most of the European countries are already struggling with high unemployment the high rates could be pushed up further and the discontent among the population could worsen, especially against the background of Neo-Nazis in Germany and other countries such as Britain or Italy. Off course this would only be a temporary problem, which would solve itself over time as the new members develop economically, but still this could prove to be a major issue.
Of course their comes also a minor problem along with the expansion, this problem being even more languages than the twelve, already being used, in which EU communications would have to be carried out adding to the already huge administrative body of the European Union and also causing further costs of the EU.
But because the expansion represents a political necessity one should also take into account the positive aspects caused by such a historic event. With the expansion the continent would take a huge step towards the ethnic integration within Europe, different cultures would be facing each other and could also profit from each other. Also the global competitiveness of the EU against the USA and Asia would improve and another step towards global peace would be undertaken.
III. Changes in administration
It is obvious that an expansion potentially including ten countries would not be feasible without fundamental institutional reforms.
For instance with the existing structure of the Union which allocates most of the power to the European Council, where each member state has one vote, it would be imaginable that smaller members would have a majority over the larger members. Except for Poland, which is by population comparable to Spain and would consequently be a large member, all other candidates are relatively small in size an population.
Another point is that with more than twenty members the decision finding and making process needs to be completely reconsidered, so it represents the actual size of the member countries in terms of population rather than giving each member a veto and especially one single vote. The existing voting and weighting system is also already making the decision finding process a painfully and lengthy one, another ten different opinions added to this would make it virtually impossible to come to an agreement that at least partially satisfies all members and is therefore being supported and not vetoed against.
A changed "legislature" would also keep the democratic thought that the entire EU is based on alive and not vanish it like the existing system.
What should also be pointed out is the fact that an increase in members could lead to new coalitions within the Union and also increase competition among the individual countries. There are even critics that fear that an eastern expansion could lead to a shift in power towards the reunified Germany, since the potential new members are already heavily bound and leaning towards Germany.
What should also be considered is a change in European agricultural policy, which should actually be reformed already. The system of milk quotas, subsidies etc. which subsidises an over-production in many areas, just not to infuriate the farmers, because smaller farms would not be able to survive without the subsidies and the entire face of the European primary sector would change is completely outdated. This system could definitely no longer be kept up with even more farmers to support.
IV. Successful without absorbing the new members?
It is obvious that this question needs to be answered with a clear no. The existing members of the EU are already being absorbed by it and they have all chosen this faith. The goals of the European Union do state the loss of sovereignty in the areas of economic and currency politics, the latter one already realized, also in the political areas of social politics, education, research, consumer protection, health and also environmental issues. Now one could argue how many of these goals need to be realized in order for the EU to be successful, from the British point of view for example the cooperation in economic issues and the creation of the single market have already been enough, considering their opinion towards the Maastricht treaty.
If one would see it from the British point of view the EU could be successful without absorbing the new members, but since most other countries would like to see the above mentioned goals implied and would like to realize the dream of de Gaulle, Adenauer and others of "the United States of Europe", the new members would surrender a huge part of their sovereignty and consequently would be absorbed by the EU, especially considering that they will join in a couple of years at the earliest when European integration will hopefully have advanced beyond the point it is today.
Another point one could consider is what would happen if the European integration would further advance up to the point of the United States of Europe without any new countries joining. This would create another superpower alongside the USA and the then non-members would live in the shadow of the EU or whatever its name would be by that time and also be absorbed by the enormous power, in any terms, of their big neighbour just like the Caribbean, Canada and Mexico, even the entire Americas are by the USA. So the conclusion drawn by this could be that the central and eastern European countries would be better off in any case if they joined the EU even if they had to surrender much of their sovereignty.
Sources:
(1) http://www.europa.eu.int/ (March 17th, 2001)
(2) http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/public/zeige_pm.html?pmid=26445 (April 5th, 2001)
(3) Informationen zur politischen Bildung: Europäische Union (BpB, 1995)
(4) Microsoft Encarta 98
(5) Mittel- und Osteuropa auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union (Werner Weidenfeld, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1996)
(6) http://www.e-politik.de/beitrag.cfm?Beitrag_ID=559 (April 1st, 2001)
