abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeblueskyburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfilterflaggenderglobeglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptriangletwitteruniversalitywebwhatsappxIcons / Social / YouTube

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

内容有以下的语言版本: English, Русский

文章

2025年11月27日

作者:
Zapad24 (Запад24)

Russia: RUSAL Achinsk Alumina Refinery sued over industrial safety violations

指控

[Summary translation prepared by Business & Human Rights Centre]

Rostekhnadzor seeks court-ordered suspension of the Achinsk alumina refinery, 27 November 2025

The Achinsk City Court has begun reviewing materials in an administrative case under Part 1 of Article 9.1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses (“Violation of industrial safety requirements at hazardous production facilities”). The alleged violator is RUSAL Achinsk Alumina Refinery. The case was initiated by Rostekhnadzor.

According to the statement, an unscheduled on-site inspection was carried out at the refinery in September. As a result, 32 violations of industrial safety requirements were identified, posing a threat to human life and health as well as to the environment. An administrative offense report was subsequently filed against the legal entity.

Journalists from the Novaya Prichulyimka newspaper attended the first court hearing, where the specific issues identified were outlined, including:

  • incomplete information on the registration of a hazardous production facility in the state register;
  • service lives of a number of technical devices exceeding 10 years, with no up-to-date data on their condition;
  • operation of buildings without the required licenses and expert conclusions;
  • failure to register hazardous production facilities such as pools and crushing units;
  • absence of a backup route for ore transportation;
  • a low level of training among personnel involved in technological processes.

The defendant agreed with some of the alleged violations but disputed others.