On August 8, Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Tran Hong Ha ordered the investigation after receiving complaints from locals that the fertiliser plant discharges solid waste containing gypsum. This chemical contains toxic phosphor, which in large volumes can cause serious environmental pollution and harm people’ health.
Ha assigned the Vietnam Environment Administration (VEA) to check the plant’s operation and report to him before August 12.
On August 10, Dinh Vu DAP’s general director Nguyen Van Sinh submitted a report to the VEA on its environmental protection measures as well as its waste treatment system.
Accordingly, toxicity volumes in the waste sample were under the permitted level. Notably, the total phosphate (P2O5) volume in the gypsum residue is under 1 per cent, well below the permitted level of maximum 1.4 per cent, the pH content is higher than 2.2, and, especially, no P2O5 overflows into the environment were detected.
In addition, Dinh Vu DAP confirmed that it absolutely complies with the contents of the environmental impact assessment report approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE).
However, the Haiphong Department of Natural Resources and Environment’s unannounced inspection on July 20 showed very different results than the company’s report. Notably, the sulphur volume exceeds 1.05 time more than the permitted level. Besides, the pH content in the gypsum residue stands between 2.09 and 2.01 instead of the 2.2 level reported by the company.
In the larger context, this is the fifth time the company causes an environmental break-down since it started operation in April 2009.
Notably, on July 26, 2009, Dinh Vu DAP leaked seven tonnes of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) from its depot. However, employees prevented the spillage from spreading out the environment and managed to contain it within the plant’s grounds.
On February 25, 2011, another leak incident, this time ammonia (NH3), actually reached the environment.
On June 23, 2013, the company’s reservoir overflew, killing fishes in residents’ ponds. The company had to pay a compensation of VND115 million ($5,198) to the residents.
On September 4, 2015, the company negligently dumped seven cubic metres of gypsum residue into the environment.
In addition, VEA’s conclusion released on May 10, 2016, showed that the company has once again violated environmental regulations. Notably, according to the environmental impact assessment, the gypsum landfill area is supposed to be 10 hectares and the licensed storage time is three years only. However, in reality, the landfill has an area of 13 hectares and the storage time reaches up to five years.
Furthermore, during inspection, the local authorities detected that the infrastructure for environmental protection does not meet the regulated standards and hides risks of environmental pollution.
The Haiphong Department of Natural Resources and Environment submitted documents to the MoNRE and the Ministry of Industry and Trade to call attention to the Dinh Vu DAP case of environmental pollution.
Vinachem loses big-time in fertiliser plant
Vietnam National Chemical Group is shouldering great debts after developing Ninh Binh nitrogenous fertiliser plant, which has been amassing continuous losses in its operations, according to newswire Antt.vn. |
Formosa fined for fish deaths
The culprit of the biggest environmental scandal in Vietnam, Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Corp, which operates a $10.5 billion steel and port complex in the central province of Ha Tinh’s Vung Ang Economic Zone, has to pay $500 million for its violations but will not face criminal charges. |
Another Vinachem plant announces huge losses
State-run Vietnam National Chemical Group’s (Vinachem) fertiliser subsidiaries have had difficulty in selling products due to oversupply, leading to continuous losses. |
Formosa representative nets termination with “fish or steel” comment
Taiwanese company Formosa has fired public relations director of its Vietnamese subsidiary Hung Nghiep Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Ltd. over his controversial “steel or fish” comment. |
What the stars mean:
★ Poor ★ ★ Promising ★★★ Good ★★★★ Very good ★★★★★ Exceptional