Amur activists said that their demands to abolish the burning of pesticides near Zavitinsk have been met
[ad_1]
The Zavitinsky District Court (Amur Region) held the first hearing on the lawsuit of local residents who opposed the burning of pesticides near the settlement. Among the plaintiffs is the deputy of the Zavitinsky District Council Marina Zubova, thanks to whom history received publicity. The defendants are the administration of the municipal district, the State Budgetary Institution “Ekologiya” and the contractor LLC “Sistema”. The activists reported that the defendants were complying with their demands.
Representatives of the plaintiffs Olga Kanteeva and Olga Linevich told Kommersant that the defendants terminated the contract concluded in December 2022 between the Ecology State Budgetary Institution and Sistema LLC for the transportation and disposal of almost 500 tons of hazardous substances. The contractor was supposed to transport and dispose of pesticides at the site near Zavitinsk, which are stored near the Vostochny cosmodrome.
Earlier, as Kommersant reported, 100 tons of dangerous substances were burned there. In addition, the administration of Zavitinsk sent a notice to Sistema LLC about the termination of the lease agreement for the land plot where pesticides were burned, and the Ecology State Budgetary Institution, in turn, notified the termination of the lease agreement for property – we are talking about special equipment type incinerator HURIKAN-1000. It must be dismantled and transported to Blagoveshchensk.
“In fact, the defendants are fulfilling the demands that we put forward, we also regard this as our victory. Of course, the question is, where will this installation be moved now? In addition, it was purchased for the disposal of waste of the 4th-5th hazard class, and the waste that was disposed of belonged to the 2nd-3rd hazard class,” said Ms. Kanteeva.
In what area of the Amur region work on the burning of pesticides will continue is still unknown. The next court session is scheduled for February 15. Representatives of the plaintiffs said that they filed a petition with the court to dismiss the case, since the defendants fulfilled all the requirements of the plaintiffs.
[ad_2]
Source link
