In the autumn of 2024, law enforcement officers in Bengbu City, Anhui Province, encountered a tricky case: a company's production line was operating normally, but the supporting dust removal equipment was not running, and there were significant discrepancies between production records and maintenance records. Faced with inquiries, the personnel involved have various statements, and the testimonies of key personnel are inconsistent. The company also repeatedly uses reasons such as "sudden malfunction" and "inability to stop production" to evade responsibility. How can law enforcement personnel open up the situation?
Initial clues: abnormal on-site investigation and locking, ledger comparison tearing open gaps
On September 11, 2024, law enforcement officers from the Ecological Environment Bureau of Bengbu City, Anhui Province, conducted an on-site inspection of a new material technology company in Anhui Province (hereinafter referred to as the new material company). An abnormal phenomenon came into view: the hot-dip galvanizing production line was operating at full capacity, but its supporting dust collector fan was completely shut down. Faced with inquiries from law enforcement personnel, workshop leader Xu claimed that "the shift handover was still normal" and delayed providing operation and maintenance records for reasons such as "the recorder taking leave".
Law enforcement personnel quickly fixed the on-site evidence, produced the "On site Inspection (Survey) Record" according to the procedure, detailed key information such as production status, facility shutdown, and dust accumulation conflicts, took on-site photos, and drew the "On site Survey Plan".
At the same time, law enforcement officers retrieved key ledgers such as the "Galvanized Dust Collector Operation Record", "Product Production Daily Report", and "Item Outbound Form" from the company since September for item by item comparison. Upon verification, two obvious contradictions were found: firstly, the production report showed that production continued to be "full load", but the dust collector operation record had a "cut-off" blank several days before the inspection; The second issue is that the delivery note shows that the repair materials were received on September 11th, but the repair record has been delayed until September 15th. The evidence of "no reduction in production, blank records, and receiving maintenance materials but not repairing" has formed a joint force, preliminarily exposing the false statement of the enterprise's "sudden failure and timely maintenance", proving the suspicion of intentionally delaying maintenance and allowing pollutants to be discharged directly in order to maintain production.
Tearing apart the cocoon: Multiple rounds of questioning expose contradictions, restore testing breaks through lies
In order to thoroughly investigate the facts and lock in responsibilities, law enforcement officers conducted 8 investigations and inquiries into four key personnel of the company, including safety and environmental officer Gu, galvanizing workshop leader Xu, production plant manager Li, and machine maintenance leader Zhou, and made a "Record of Investigation and Inquiry".
In the early stages, the involved personnel had different statements and shifted blame to each other. All four concealed the fact that the dust collector had been out of service for a long time and had not been repaired in a timely manner after a malfunction, attempting to blame it with reasons such as "temporary malfunction", "equipment still partially operating", and "inability to stop production".
Faced with the deadlock, law enforcement officers took a crucial action on October 23- conducting a dust collector fault reduction test on site (with multiple measures taken to ensure safety). At the same time, the "Emergency Plan for Sudden Environmental Incidents" prepared by the enterprise has clearly stipulated that "if the exhaust gas treatment facilities fail and stop operating, the pollution generating process must be immediately stopped". The objective experiment combined with relevant regulations of the enterprise constitutes an irrefutable chain of physical and institutional evidence, completely shattering the false statements of the parties involved and laying a key foundation for subsequent breakthroughs.
The truth emerges: evidence closed-loop accountability, dual punishment highlights its power
On October 26th, law enforcement officers presented key evidence such as restorative testing videos and ledger records during the final questioning. The psychological defenses of the involved individuals were breached, and they began to confess one after another, admitting that previous claims such as "immediate repair" and "equipment still functioning" were fabricated.
Final investigation: After the malfunction occurred on September 9th, Xu only shut down the equipment but did not report it. It was not until the evening of September 14th that Zhou was notified to repair it, and it was not until September 15th that production was stopped for repairs. During this period, the production line continued to operate, resulting in direct discharge of smoke and dust. At this point, the complete illegal facts of "discovering faults, concealing them, continuing production, and delaying repairs" have been clearly restored, and the evidence chain has been closed loop.
On December 13, 2024, the Ecology and Environment Bureau of Bengbu City made an administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law: imposing a fine of RMB 256000 on the New Materials Company; At the same time, according to relevant regulations, the directly responsible person Xu will be transferred to the public security organs for filing and handling. This case, through the "dual punishment" of fines imposed on enterprises and detention of responsible persons, not only made the violators pay the due price, but also sent a signal of "zero tolerance" for ecological environment supervision to the whole society, reflecting the deterrent power of the connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice, and providing a model for investigating and punishing similar illegal behaviors that evade supervision.
Learn from the case
Three law enforcement breakthroughs to crack the defense of enterprises
（1） How to solve the defense of "normal equipment during inspection, no knowledge of faults, and no subjective intention" in the face of enterprises?
Law enforcement personnel can focus on three fixed pieces of evidence: first, verifying the authenticity of the operating ledger, comparing records with actual situations; The second is to lock in the responsible person and the time nodes when faults should be discovered through scheduling, handover records, and inquiries; The third is to compare the internal management system and prove that it has not fulfilled its obligations such as self-examination and reporting, forming a complete chain of evidence.
（2） How to break through the saying that enterprises cannot implement production stoppage during equipment failure?
In this case, law enforcement officers confirmed through questioning the production plant manager Li and workshop leader Xu that there were no technical obstacles to the "inability to stop production" of the hot-dip galvanizing production line; Retrieve the enterprise's Emergency Plan for Sudden Environmental Incidents and confirm that the enterprise should be aware of and fulfill its obligation to suspend production; According to the records of the company's shutdown and maintenance of dust collectors, as well as the daily production report during the malfunction period, it is confirmed that the company has the ability to shut down but has not stopped production. The statement 'unable to shut down' is a false defense.
（3） How to restore the truth in the face of contradictory confessions and mutual shirking of responsibility among the involved personnel?
Law enforcement personnel can use a combination of "detailed questioning+documentary verification+on-site testing" to make breakthroughs. In this case, law enforcement officers focused on key time points for questioning, exposing loopholes in the testimony; Retrieve original documentary evidence such as call records, outbound orders, and maintenance records to construct a factual timeline independent of the testimony; Carry out on-site restorative testing on the premise of necessity and ensuring safety, refute the false statement that "the equipment can operate partially during the fault period", and ultimately restore the complete illegal facts.
Contribution | Ecological Environment Law Enforcement Bureau of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment
Original Title: Case Record ⑫ | Why is the dust collector silent when the production line is running at full capacity?
