Chinese appeal court did not make chemical firms pay remediation at Changzhou
Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.
In 2018 the Jiangsu Higher People's Court did not require chemical firms to pay remediation costs at the Changzhou toxic land site, and the state carried out the clean-up. Separately, China's environment ministry said the Guigang treatment plant had sent 13,600 tonnes of sludge to unsuitable sites and falsified more than 30 documents before inspection.
- Changzhou chemical firms — No remediation cost imposed; paid an apology and 230,000 yuan in costs Beijing News (新京报)
- Taxpayers and the state — Carried out the remediation of the Changzhou site Beijing News (新京报)
- Land and water near the unsuitable sludge sites — Sludge placed in unsuitable locations, per the ministry
What happened
In December 2018 the second-instance ruling in the Changzhou toxic land case did not impose remediation costs on the chemical firms; they paid an apology and 230,000 yuan in costs (Beijing News).
The state carried out the remediation of the site, according to the same report.
In October 2018 the environment ministry reported that the Guigang treatment plant had placed 13,600 tonnes of sludge in unsuitable locations and falsified more than 30 documents before an inspection.
In court and with insurers
Lawsuits and rulings
- 2018-12Defendant wonChangzhou toxic land case (second instance)Jiangsu Higher People's Court · Civil · Not stated in the sources reviewed → Chemical firms at the Changzhou site
The court did not impose remediation costs on the firms; they paid an apology and 230,000 yuan in costs, and the state carried out the remediation. Beijing News (新京报)
Insurers
What we don't know
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
Record
- None on record The claimant in the Changzhou case is not named in the sources reviewed.
- Insufficient Reported but not verified: in 2016 hundreds of children fell ill at a school near the Changzhou site, and NGOs sued two clean-up firms.
- Unclear Whether the Guigang plant operator faced any penalty is not stated.
- None on record No personal penalties for officials or managers are recorded.
Did the harm stop?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Who paid?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Sources
Press and investigations
- 新京报: 常州毒地案二审宣判Beijing News (新京报) · 2018-12
Connected cases
- China's ecology-oriented development pilots fund restoration with land revenue China · 2021–2022
- Ministry of Ecology and Environment (Government) — here: reported the Guigang violations; there: Ministry associated with the EOD pilots
- Jiangsu court did not make chemical firms pay for Changzhou land cleanup China · 2018
- Jiangsu Higher People's Court (Government) — here: second-instance court; there: Appeal court