Moreover, the managerial system of the industrial zone was not clear and precise, its personnel were not employed on a regular basis and its expenditure relied mainly on interests derived from monthly payments of the factories. These explained why the wastewater treatment plants of industrial zones did not operate satisfactorily. (Taiwan jih-pao, 1988/10/24/3)

     In order to improve wastewater emission at industrial zones, the IDB and the EPA formed a joint group in 1988 to investigate and evaluate the performance of all industrial zones over the island. Moreover, on November 29, 1988, the two offices agreed upon three resolutions. The first was to organize a group to provide guidance for industrial waste minimization, the second was to urge the developers to follow rigorously the plans related to pollution prevention and control, and the third was to adopt measures to control waste metals and their recovery. (Chung-yang jih-pao, 1988/11/30/11)

     It is in fact very hard to guard against all wrongdoing. A few cases may be mentioned here to show how tension existed between industrial development and environmental protection. For instance, in May 1996, the IDB and the EPA found fault with each other concerning the outlaw of wastewater emission in industrial zones.

The IDB said that what the EPA outlawed were rainwater sewers polluted by factories in industrial zones; more than 20 managerial centers of industrial zones were imposed fines that caused them a lot of money lost. Since it was difficult to catch wastewater emission right on the spot, the EPA chose to impose fines on rainwater sewers instead and this was not fair. The IDB also pointed out that in the industrial zones, wastewater and rainwater were conducted into separate sewers and the EPA had no right to inspect the rainwater sewer. (Lien-ho pao, 1996/05/22/19)

     There were also different opinions concerning whether the Effluent Standard set for the year 1998 should be loosened. This standard was publicized in 1991 and expected to execute beginning in January 1998. On the one hand, many industrial groups proposed revisions while the EPA had no intention to revise, but agreed to let seven industrial groups postpone implementation for two years if they could submit plans for improvement. Some environmental protection groups expressed strong opposition and the legislators in charge of reviewing the EPA's proposal did not agree to allow a two-year postponement for the seven industrial groups. (Chung-kuo shih-pao, 1997/09/11/16; Lien-ho pao, 1997/10/23/19)