Which enterprises were fined?
Which enterprises were fined?
The civil movement “Gavigudet” often mentions that the health of the citizens of Rustavi can’t only depend on the good will of entrepreneurs. In order to properly enforce the existing law, the citizens involvement is the most important. That’s why we organized the “Call 153” campaign to work together and properly reach the department of environmental supervision in order to inspect enterprises more frequently. Today, our team is sharing the information received from the Ministry of Environment Protection and Agriculture, about the environmental inspections carried out in Rustavi after June 1, 2021.
LLC “Rustavi Steel”
As June 18 unscheduled and documentary inspection of “Rustavi Steel” revealed that the enterprise operates with a number of violations, including: trees and plants damage, violation of water resources protection law; Violation of Ambient Air Protection law; Violation of the conditions established by Environmental Assessment Code – working without an environmental decision or screening decision, failure to meet the obligations of the waste management code. Failure to meet the obligation to continuously determine the actual amounts of emissions from stationary sources of pollution into the ambient air by the instrumental method.
LLC “Rustavi Azoti”
As a result of an unscheduled inspection carried out on June 23, “Rustavi Azoti” was fined GEL 5,000. We read in the report that “Rustavi Azoti” doesn’t carry out its activities in accordance with the environmental impact assessment report, expected environmental impact mitigation measures, conclusions and recommendations of the measures described in the plan, including the disposal of hazardous waste in accordance with legal requirements. The inspection also showed the inflow of ground water from the bottom of the wall in the building of the pumps, the lower space of the building was also flooded.
LLC “Geosteel”
The June 29 inspection of “Geosteel” revealed that the enterprise doesn’t meet its obligation to continuously determine the actual amount of emissions from stationary sources of pollution into the air by the instrumental method, in accordance with the conditions established by the environmental decision. Also violates the rules of operation of air-trapping devices.
LLC “Rusalloys” and LLC “Heidelbergcement Georgia”
Like LLC “Geosteel”, “Rusalloys” June 30 and “Heidelbergcement Georgia” July 2 Documentary inspections have shown that neither enterprise meets its obligation to continuously determine the actual amount of emissions from stationary sources of pollution into the ambient air by the instrumental method, for which both of them were fined GEL 10,000.
LLC “Geoferometal” and LLC “Ferroalloys Production”
As for the July 19 documentary reports of “Geoferometal” and “Ferroalloys Production” like the above-mentioned enterprises, they don’t continuously determine the actual amount of emissions from stationary sources of pollution into the ambient air by the instrumental method although none of them has been fined.
LLC “SOCAR Georgia Petroleum“ wasn’t fined either, as its July 14 documentary inspection revealed that the enterprise was violating the conditions set by the environmental protection decision.
Based on the scheduled inspection, no violations were detected in the four enterprises because the enterprises aren’t functioning. These enterprises are: LLC “Eco Oil”, LLC “Virtuozi”, LLC “Metex”, LLC “Steel-2001”
As a result of the scheduled inspection in two enterprises, no violation of the conditions established by the conclusion of the ecological expertise was revealed; these enterprises are: LLC “Inter-Metalproduct” and LLC “Inter-Metal Product 2002”.
Also, two enterprises are currently undergoing planned inspections and checkup, these enterprises are: LLC “RSM Corp” and LLC “New Technologies”.
“Gavigudet” continues to monitor the implementation of ambient air protection legislation and to inform the public about the results.
Prepared with the financial support of the Open Society Georgia Foundation. The views, opinions and statements expressed by the authors and those providing comments are theirs only and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foundation. Therefore, the Open Society Georgia Foundation is not responsible for the content of the information material.