The construction of a 14-hectare steel manufacturing plant by Acero Lima Sheng Long S.A.C. in Chilca, Peru, is operating without a mandatory detailed Environmental Impact Assessment, according to environmental regulators. Despite lacking approved environmental instruments, inspections revealed substantial pre-construction progress, triggering administrative sanction procedures and a bureaucratic dispute over corrective adequacy mechanisms.
Regulatory Scrutiny Intensifies Over Unpermitted Steel Facility
Acero Lima Sheng Long S.A.C., a Chinese-capital steel company established in July 2024, initiated activities on January 14, 2025, according to data from the Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas y de Administración Tributaria (SUNAT).
Here is why that matters for regional governance. On August 11, 2025, the company submitted a Citizen Participation Plan (PPC) to the Ministry of Production (PRODUCE) to produce wires, sheets, and steel bars. While PRODUCE approved the PPC on September 29, the projected output of approximately 700,000 tons of material annually triggered the legal requirement for a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA-d).
However, a field supervision conducted by the Organismo de Evaluación y Fiscalización Ambiental (OEFA) on December 12, 2025, revealed a different reality on the ground. A representative claiming to have joined the company on August 15 admitted that construction work had begun well before their arrival. Inspectors verified that preliminary work on the site had reached approximately 80% completion, despite the absence of an approved EIA-d.
Environmental Audits and Administrative Sanctions
Following the initial inspection, OEFA confirmed that Sheng Long lacked any approved environmental management instrument. Photographic comparisons of the site taken by El Diario in December 2025 and August 2026 demonstrated that construction continued to advance unchecked for months.
The enforcement mechanism escalated on March 11, when OEFA executed a second supervision. This intervention culminated in Final Supervision Report No. 00398-2026-OEFA/DSAP-CIND, which recommended initiating an administrative sanction procedure against the company. OEFA also formally notified PRODUCE, the Servicio Nacional de Certificación Ambiental para las Inversiones Sostenibles (SENACE), and the Municipality of Chilca to request documentation regarding environmental permits and municipal authorizations.
Chronology of Regulatory Filings and Agency Actions
| Date | Entity | Action / Milestone |
|---|---|---|
| July 2024 | SUNAT | Acero Lima Sheng Long S.A.C. is legally created. |
| January 14, 2025 | Sheng Long | Company initiates commercial or operational activities. |
| August 11, 2025 | PRODUCE | Company submits Citizen Participation Plan (PPC) for review. |
| September 29, 2025 | PRODUCE | Ministry approves the Citizen Participation Plan. |
| December 12, 2025 | OEFA | First site inspection reveals 80% preliminary work without an EIA-d. |
| March 11, 2026 | OEFA | Second supervision concludes with a recommendation for sanctions. |
| June 15, 2026 | DGAAMI | Directorate rejects Sheng Long’s PAMA application due to statutory deadlines. |
| August 24, 2026 | Vice Ministry | Resolution signed by Vice Minister Eloy Durán nullifies the rejection due to formal errors. |
The Legal Battle Over Environmental Adaptation Mechanisms
Seeking to bypass the lengthy EIA-d process, Sheng Long attempted to enroll in a Programa de Adecuación y Manejo Ambiental (PAMA). This corrective mechanism allows ongoing industrial activities to comply with environmental regulations without undergoing a full EIA. But there is a catch under national legislation: access is restricted strictly to operations that initiated activities prior to June 27, 2019.
Because Sheng Long was founded in 2024, the Dirección General de Asuntos Ambientales de Industria (DGAAMI) rejected the PAMA request on June 15. Yet that rejection was subsequently declared null of office on August 24 by Vice Minister of MYPE and Industry Eloy Durán Cervantes. The reversal hinged on a formal procedural flaw, as the original DGAAMI ruling cited a repealed legal norm alongside a nonexistent one.
The vice-ministerial resolution remanded the procedure back to DGAAMI for a legally sound re-evaluation. Following media inquiries, PRODUCE’s communications office clarified the precise legal standing of the project. As representatives for the ministry explained, the nullification of the previous directoral resolution addresses purely formal errors and does not constitute a substantive approval of the PAMA. An underlying technical report explicitly maintains the impropriety of the company’s PAMA application, leaving the regulatory status of the Chilca steel plant contested as oversight bodies weigh next steps.
