Hydrotechnical Construction

, Volume 27, Issue 10, pp 567–576 | Cite as

Lessons from an examination by experts of the Katun hydroelectric station project

  • V. V. Kayakin
  • A. V. Mulina
  • I. L. Dmitrieva
Ecology and Hydraulic Engineering
  • 12 Downloads

Conclusion

Rejection of the Katun hydrostation project is due not to technical or ecological shortcomings of the project but to political motives and public pressure, which was promoted by the absence of standards for project and examination activities under the current ecological conditions.

The joint solution of controversial social and ecological problems with the population and public of Gornyi Altai during modification of the project provided successful adaptation of the project.

Activation of contacts between Mintopénergo and Minpriroda RF for finding mutually acceptable solution is necessary.

There is a need to develop and regulate standards for project and examination activities, including the solution of controversial social and ecological problems and adaptation of the project in the region and at the center. The experience of project planning and examination of the Katun hydrostation project could serve as the basis for forming such standards.

Keywords

Energy Source Power Generation Ecological Condition Project Planning Power Engineer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. 1.
    O. F. Vasil'ev, S. A. Sukhenko, A. A. Atavin, et al., “Ecological aspects of the Katun hydroelectric station project due to the presence of mercury in the environment of Gornyi Altai,” Vodn. Resur., No. 6 (1992).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. L. Dmitrieva, Yu. V. Zelyukova, et al., “Study of the distribution and migration of heavy metals in various components of the environment of Gornyi Altai in connection with ecological substantiation of the Katun hydrostation project,” Gidrotekh. Stroit., No. 6 (1990).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. L. Dmitrieva, V. S. Boldenkov, et al., “Mercury in the environment of the region of the proposed construction of the Katun hydrostation with a reregulator,” in: Collection of Works of Gidroproekt [in Russian], No. 144 (1990).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. G. Ionin, “Understanding and examination by experts,” Vopr. Filosof., No. 10 (1991).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “The Katun Project: Problems of Examination,” in: Materials for the Public and Scientific Conference on April 13–15, 1990 [in Russian], Sib. Otd. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Novosibirsk.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katun: The Ecogeochemistry of Mercury [in Russian], Sib. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Novosibirsk (1992).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    UN Environment and Development Conference (Rio de Janeiro, June 1992): Information Review [in Russian], Sib. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Novosibirsk (1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. G. Rappaport, “Limits of project planning,” Vopr. Metodol., No. 1 (1991).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. V. Kayakin and A. V. Mulina, “Socioecological monitoring in hydrotechnical construction,” Gidrotekh. Stroit., No. 3 (1993).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Criteria of the Sanitary and Hygienic State of the Environment. Part 1: Mercury. Joint Publication of the WHO and UNEP [in Russian], Meditsina, Moscow (1979).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. V. Kayakin
  • A. V. Mulina
  • I. L. Dmitrieva

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations