Second-Instance Court Overturns Environmental Review Approval for NTHU Phase III Qixing Park, Orders Retrial

(Central News Agency reporter Liu Shih-yi, Taipei, 11th) The Environmental Protection Administration (now restructured as the Ministry of Environment) approved the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the NTHU Phase III Qixing Park. Residents filed a lawsuit seeking to revoke the EIA approval and won at first instance. Today, the second-instance court ruled that the original judgment contained errors in the application of laws and insufficient reasoning, and therefore overturned the ruling and remanded the case to the Taipei High Administrative Court for retrial.

The case originated when the Central Taiwan Science Park Administration compiled the draft of the second-phase EIA report for the NTHU Phase III Qixing Park and submitted it to the Environmental Protection Administration for review on July 22, 2016. The EPA announced on November 6, 2018, that the second-phase EIA review had been approved.

Residents and farmers, dissatisfied with the EIA approval, filed an appeal, which was rejected. They then initiated administrative litigation, requesting the revocation of the appeal decision and the original administrative action.

At first instance, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled in favor of the residents, finding that the EIA report failed to fully assess the health risks posed by carcinogenic chemical substances emitted through factory chimneys within the park.

Environmental groups stated that this was Taiwan's first second-phase EIA case to be overturned by a court.

The case was appealed, and the second-instance trial was conducted by the Supreme Administrative Court. According to a press release from the Supreme Administrative Court, the court held that whether hazardous chemical substances could potentially leak accidentally must be evaluated in accordance with the technical specifications for health risk assessment regarding emission source identification.

The second-instance court found that the original judgment failed to clarify whether the calculation of hazardous chemical emissions derived from chimney detection results had overlooked potential accidental leakage scenarios. It further noted that the lower court neglected its duty to conduct a thorough investigation and directly concluded that the reported emission levels did not include accidental leakage estimates—a determination deemed premature.

On the other hand, the Science Park Administration had already explained why certain hazardous chemicals were excluded from health risk and dose-effect assessments. The second-instance court pointed out that the lower court failed to investigate and articulate whether other relevant literature, not referenced in the EIA report, could have influenced the health risk assessment outcomes. This omission constituted errors in the non-application or incorrect application of regulations and insufficient reasoning. As a result, the original judgment was overturned and the case remanded for retrial. (Editor: Hsiao Po-wen)