Print

Mail

wiki links

EPA delays plant review in response to criticism

Members of environmental groups protest the review of the Changpin Industrial Park power plant proposal at the Environmental Protection Administration in Taipei yesterday. The proposal was submitted to the administration as new this year, although it had been reviewed last year. PHOTO: CNA

The Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) yesterday came under fire from environmental groups that accused the agency of violating the Environmental Impact Assessment Act (環境影響評估法) in relation to a proposed power plant.

At a meeting yesterday of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) committee tasked with reviewing the plans for the coal-fired Changpin Industrial Park (彰濱工業區) power plant, environmental groups said the project could not be reconsidered as a new proposal because it had already been rejected by another EIA committee.

In response, the committee postponed the evaluation yesterday, saying it would look into the allegations that the review would violate procedure.

The activists had filed a complaint about the matter with the Control Yuan.

“Last April, the Changpin power plant was found to be ‘unfit for development’ ... However, [Taipower found a loophole in the law] and withdrew the project before the committee could make its recommendation to the EIA panel,” said Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (TEPU) chairwoman Gloria Hsu (徐光蓉), who served as chairwoman on the committee last year.

“This is like a defendant trying his luck with different judges until he gets a favorable verdict ... The EPA and state-owned Taipower are wasting taxpayers’ money.” — Thomas Chan, lawyer

In the EIA process, a case is usually first reviewed by an EIA committee; once the committee is satisfied that it has received the necessary information to evaluate the project — a process that can take several years — the committee passes on its recommendation of “fit” or “unfit” to an EIA panel.

The panel usually accepts the committee’s conclusion.

“This year, Taipower refiled the power plant proposal as a new case, with few changes to the construction plan, in an attempt to go through the EIA process again as a first-phase project,” Hsu said.

Cases that do not pass the first phase of the EIA process, such as those deemed to have a sizeable environmental impact, are put to a second phase review that is more complex and usually has stricter requirements for the developer.

The EPA’s decision to let Taipower resubmit its proposal as new has set an unwanted precedent, said Thomas Chan (詹順貴), a lawyer who also served on the EIA committee that reviewed the Changpin proposal.

“Hung-du Alishan International Development Corp, the potential developer of a hotel on top of Alishan, which also received a negative recommendation from its EIA committee recently, withdrew its proposal from the EPA yesterday, too,” Chan said.

“This is like a defendant trying his luck with different judges until he gets a favorable verdict ... If the EPA allows this to happen, other developers are bound to follow suit,” he said. “In the meantime, the EPA and state-owned Taipower are wasting taxpayers’ money.”

As the nation already generates enough electricity for domestic usage, the electricity generated by the Changpin power plant would fuel further construction projects, TEPU Changhua district director Tsai Chia-yang (蔡嘉揚) said.

“Building more coal-burning power plants should not be part of Taiwan’s future; the government should practice what it preaches by reducing carbon emissions and electricity consumption,” he said.

An EPA official said, however, that the EPA’s interpretation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act was within its rights and that Taipower had the right to withdraw its proposal before it reaches the EIA panel. Nevertheless, the EIA committee chair postponed the review until the Control Yuan has ruled on the legality of resubmitting projects.
This story has been viewed 942 times.