Thousands of tons of hazardous waste piled in the open have polluted the environment; a pesticide manufacturer was fined 10 million yuan.

The prolonged open-air storage of thousands of tons of hazardous waste has caused severe environmental pollution. On June 29, the People’s Court of Xuanwu District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, delivered a public first-instance verdict in this case: the defendant entity, Jiangsu Chengyang Crop Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chengyang Company”), was found guilty of the crime of environmental pollution and sentenced to a fine of RMB 10 million; the defendant Ouyang Lixin was convicted of the same crime and sentenced to one year and three months’ imprisonment, together with a fine; the defendant Li Xiang was also convicted of environmental pollution and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, along with a fine; furthermore, the illegal proceeds of the defendant entity were confiscated and turned over to the state treasury.

The court, after trial, found that the defendant company, Chengyang Co., Ltd., is engaged in the production and sale of the pesticide fungicides difenoconazole and cyproconazole. In order to reduce costs, starting in the second half of 2015, Chengyang Co., Ltd. unilaterally established an open-air storage yard within a factory complex in the Jiangbei New Area to stockpile by‑product materials. The defendants, Ouyang Lixin and Li Xiang, served as general manager and deputy general manager of Chengyang Co., Ltd., respectively. To meet the growing need for storing accumulating by‑products, despite knowing that Chengyang’s by‑products constituted hazardous waste, that storing such waste in an open‑air yard violated national regulations, and that the preventive measures employed failed to meet the standards for hazardous‑waste storage, the two defendants, after joint deliberation, decided in 2016 and 2017 to expand the original open‑air storage yard in several phases. They then instructed and arranged for workers to pile up and store, under the guise of “intermediate products,” the hazardous waste generated during production, leaving it there for extended periods. During this prolonged storage, the by‑product materials occasionally leaked, seeped, or volatilized. An appraisal determined that the total quantity of materials—including crude CY1202 and crude difenoconazole CY1201—stored in Chengyang’s open‑air yard amounted to 3,635.967 tons; unless returned to the production process as intermediate materials, these substances qualify as hazardous waste. Testing further revealed that certain characteristic pollutants in the soil and water samples beneath Chengyang’s open‑air storage yard exceeded baseline levels by 20%, and that dichloromethane was detected inside the warehouse where the hazardous waste was stored, at concentrations far exceeding the detection limit. Dichloromethane has been listed in China’s “Catalogue of Toxic and Harmful Air Pollutants (2018)” as an air pollutant.

The court held that all organizations and individuals have an obligation to protect the environment. Hazardous waste is classified as a toxic substance. The defendant, Chengyang Company, violated relevant regulations by illegally establishing an open-air storage yard for hazardous waste. Although it implemented certain protective measures, these fell far short of the requirements for hazardous‑waste storage facilities. For several years, the company stored thousands of tons of hazardous waste in the open under the guise of “intermediate products,” deliberately allowing toxic and harmful substances to leak, disperse, and volatilize over an extended period. This conduct not only inflicted immeasurable damage on the external environment—air, soil, and water—but also posed a significant environmental safety risk, constituting illegal disposal of hazardous waste and satisfying the elements of the crime of polluting the environment.

The environmentally polluting conduct at issue was undertaken in the corporate interest of Chengyang Company and was deliberated and decided upon by its principal officer, Ouyang Lixin, together with other management personnel; accordingly, it should be characterized as a corporate crime. All parties bearing responsibility in this case were fully aware that their actions violated national regulations yet persisted in the long-term open-air stockpiling of hazardous waste, thereby demonstrating, subjectively, a criminal intent to recklessly permit environmental pollution. The defendant company, Chengyang, violated relevant state provisions in handling toxic substances, resulting in particularly grave consequences. The defendants Ouyang Lixin and Li Xiang, as the directly responsible persons in charge of the corporate offense, shall both the defendant company and the individual defendants be held criminally liable for the crime of environmental pollution.

Both defendants voluntarily surrendered, pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, and demonstrated a sincere attitude of remorse after the incident; accordingly, their sentences were reduced in accordance with the law. However, as the company’s principal managers, they were fully aware that their actions violated state regulations yet nonetheless arranged for the long-term open-air stockpiling of vast quantities of hazardous waste, demonstrating a high degree of subjective malice and committing an offense of particularly grave circumstances. Consequently, they do not meet the criteria for exemption from criminal punishment or probation, and imposing a term of imprisonment will better serve to deter and educate others. Accordingly, the court rendered the aforementioned judgment in accordance with the law.

Source: Xiaoxiang Morning Post