Taipei Times: The Cabinet's recent decision to continue construction of a wharf being built for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Kungliao township, Taipei County -- which led to the severe erosion of nearby Fulung Beach (福隆沙灘) -- shows its reluctance to review existing mistakes caused by an unsound environmental impact assessment for the project; what is the EPA's view?
Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌): The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project has long been completed. The EPA now only monitors environmental impacts pertaining to the construction of the plant based on conclusions listed on the EIA report. If any condition changes, the EPA will demand a "difference analysis" (差異分析) report, by which the EPA can evaluate the possible environmental impact sustained.
The EIA [for the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant] was done by the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) in 1991, long before the Environmental Impact Assessment Act came into effect in 1994. I believe that at that time the environmental impact on Fulung Beach of the wharf construction was not seriously considered. So now the Cabinet has a committee formed by several agencies, including the EPA, the AEC, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), and others, to keep a close eye on the project.
I have to stress that the EPA plays the role of supervisor, which would not risk the credibility of the government when facing challenges relating to environmental protection policy.
TT: Do you have any specific strategy to enhance the EPA's credibility?
Hau: If the EPA isn't trusted, what's the point of having it? For a long time, the EPA has aimed to implement environmental laws thoroughly. For example, since I assumed office [in March, 2001], we've been clamping down on all kinds of polluters by randomly inspecting illegal factories.
TT: Don't you think reviewing the controversial results of questionable EIAs can also help to build the EPA's credibility?
Hau: The EPA does not actively conduct Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA, 政策環評). I think the responsible agencies, which carry out controversial policies, should work closely with us to carry out related SEAs. Example, the EPA has to carefully review regulations regarding the establishment of golf courses island-wide in order to limit the overall environmental impact of these development projects.
TT: Has the EPA ever actively intervened to block any controversial policy for the sake of environmental protection?
Hau: Here's an example. In 2001, the MOEA agreed to suspend a project to reduce a water sources protection area in the Tsengwen River (曾文溪) basin in southern Taiwan, after conducting discussions with us. Development in basins, which are listed as drinking water source protection areas, can lead to problems at national levels. So we gave the MOEA a period of time to bring up a proposal pertaining to all similar development projects. So the Tsengwen River project remains suspended. That's an example demonstrating that the EPA will not give a green light to inappropriate plans which would eventually damage our environment. In addition, we usually urge the relevant agencies to reconsider how necessary their development projects are. If the MOEA brings up the proposal again in the near future, the EPA will conduct the SEA carefully.
TT: Controversies surrounding a newly implemented policy that limits the use of plastic shopping bags and disposable utensils continue. How do you answer challenges from academics who argue that, in terms of life cycle assessment [LCA, a tool used by the industry to assess and improve the eco-efficiency or sustainability of products], paper products are not more environmentally friendly than plastic materials?
RSS