Recently the attention of many was drawn by a situation round GSH "Danube — the Black Sea" construction. We bring to your attention of interview to the director of GP "The Delta — the Pilot" A.Golodnitsky in which he told about the project future.
The project in which the sequence of construction of a dam is specified was published on the website of the enterprise. This year you constructed part of a dam on shoal - as this construction corresponds to the project? It is possible for the public will study the new project?
It was placed during the previous period, probably version correct, probably not. The project was repeatedly finished.
I want to define the following unambiguously: by the working draft, the current legislation and CONSTRUCTION NORMS AND REGULATIONS it is provided that there is a working draft in which there is a project of the organization of construction. On the basis of these documents the contractor does the works project as a concrete compounding of production of this or that dish which in this case is called "a sea protecting dam" the deep-water navigable course (DWNC). The Works Project (WP) has to be coordinated with the general design organization, in our case its status is confirmed with the order of KMU No. 351r. After the designer confirmed that PPR is coordinated, moreover, only on it it is necessary to work, for me as for the customer all questions are removed.
On tendering this condition was accurately stated in tender documentation. The same condition passed into the contract with the Azovmekh company which was defined by the winner of the auction. The following norm - in 2-x to make and coordinate week term in accordance with the established procedure PPR. Therefore I don't discuss a correctness or abnormality question (an edition - PPR). It is a question of competence of authors of the project and geproyektirovshchik who speak absolutely responsibly and with conviction: The project of works doesn't contradict the working draft approved by the Cabinet of Ukraine which is developed by the same author and has the positive conclusion of the state complex examination.
Besides, all works were obliged to be carried out in full compliance of PPR and were carried out exactly as it is necessary, as confirm data of architectural supervision.
The dam beginning on geographical points (concrete coordinates), so-called "a dam root", begins with the region of the island Istanbul. The pioneer way completely corresponds to the working draft.
The public doesn't know today that you build. The impression is made that the designer developed one project 5 years ago, and other project and the designer becomes today doesn't object. The dam which has to protect sea approach the channel isn't constructed though it was defined in the first stage of construction of a dam. With what change of priorities by the designer and you is connected?
The sequence of construction on full development isn't provided by the working draft. The dam has to be constructed during the period according to the schedule of the construction provided by the working draft. Point.
At you on a site the sequence of construction of a damwas laid out
I am not ready to make comments. Such if was, long ago. At us on a site a lot of information "is laid out", however MBNU perceives it not all. To what such "selectivity"?
From the point of view of technology, the Project of works is a competence of the general contractor and the generating designer. and further conducting works was carried out in full accordance with PPR, and time it was coordinated, it didn't contradict the working draft.
You have a document which would be adequate today?
There is the working draft approved by the Cabinet of Ukraine, there are Permissions for construction of nature protection bodies of Ukraine, there is PPR, more than any documents it isn't required.
It is possible to tell that that part of a dam which you undertook, it, for certain, is finished. How you think further to build a protective dam? In time a press - round on GSH it was declared that parallel to "the German dam" one more dam will be constructed.
The dam is located crescently. The cutting part of a sickle is made today. Concerning the site parallel to German, is not an invention "The delta - the pilot", not Golodnitsky's invention, probably, it not Bezdolny's whim - here is how time it absolutely accurately is an element of the working draft. That edition in which the Cabinet of Ministers approved the working draft.Cutting part of a sickle - "a shallow site", further - "the German dam" and 730 meters of the deep-water part finishing all this structure. It is an axiom which is put in the working draft, and in this part it has no controversial questions. The question "Why is need parallel to the German part to build one more site? " again not to me, and to designers, Ukrinvestekspertiza and the government of Ukraine which approved this project.
I am almost sure that this remained site will become in the combined way: as in the pioneer way, and with the help плавкранов, but final "compounding" will be visible in packages of tender offers which will be opened at the end of this week. And final legitimization will be after development of the Project of works which will be agreed with the general designer.
This moment is a little unclear. When you say that "the way of construction" will be defined, the feeling is created that you in general have no project. There is a purpose to construct, but of what stone as, unclear. After all many technical moments are connected with these questions, including, for certain, and dam durability. Or there is any order?
Here everything is clear, characteristics of a stone which has to be laid in a body of a dam are accurately painted, also the project defined a design of a dam which consists of the crushed-stone filter, a kernel and facing. To the discretion of the contractor remains, as all this to execute taking into account available equipment.
That sketchiness which is put in the working draft of construction of a dam, gave a certain scope for PPR. Unlike the house on which everything is clear - there are rigid TEU, standards and other, a dam of the sea approach channel - unique object.
As the customer, we include the working draft in tender documentation as an integral part. Respectively, responsibility is conferred on the bidder, but the classics of a genre construction is that there is a project, and there is PPR. For the building люфт between the working draft (deeply registered) and PPR can be at most in brick brand. And for a dam which is deep and comprehensive it isn't stated in the working draft and which is absolutely exclusive and unique hydraulic engineering construction in the territory of Ukraine, люфт - huge.
The dam which will be constructed parallel to "the German dam", it belongs to the question "how to deliver", or "how to build", and is the full-fledged hydraulic engineering construction?
It is the full-fledged hydraulic engineering construction. According to designers and according to the State Committee for Construction which responded to their requests, experience in Ukraine and standards in use of geotextiles are absent. The Joseph Möbius company officially wrote the designer that in their practice of geotextile bags of a dam in the high sea weren't under construction. Probably, the dam will sustain the millennia, probably, no. Anyway, the Ukrainian generating designer, the author of the project, proceeding from collected information, claims that it is impossible to hope for the German site of a dam. Therefore the full-fledged hydraulic engineering construction - what will be made parallel to "the German dam".
Whether there will go on a parallel site of a dam trucks?
I believe that isn't present. The point of reception of a new stone probably will be located around most "the German dam".
What does "The experimental dam" mean? In an original project neither experimental, nor the parallel dam wasn't.
There is Ukrinvestekspertiza's conclusion from 26.10.2006г. in which at least 2 paragraphs are devoted to that "the German site", made of geotextile bags, is experimental and doesn't enter the project of full development. That the geotextiles are used, the position of the designer is unambiguous - the dam was made not of that material which was stated in the working draft of the first stage. The working draft of the I stage was defined by the order of Cabinet of Ministers No. 283r of 2004 and says that a dam - exclusively stone embankment, including a kernel.
The parallel dam will influence current change, a zanosimost and so forth, after all the axis of a dam paid off on the basis of certain models?
The parallel dam also was checked on models and any negative phenomena doesn't render.
Then that you departed from a project axis?
We did accurately on a project axis. And existence bows is necessary to block a river current. Parallel to a dam is a continuation of an axis of a dam.
It was declared that the project GSH "Danube — the Black Sea" will be completed at the expense of own enterprise assets. In 2005 when the enterprise did the project at the expense of own means ("the German part") the sum of 40 million.it was quite strongly reflected in financial part of the enterprise. How you estimate today ability of the enterprise independently to realize this project?
Actually, the cost of construction of a dam, certainly, will pass for the declared cost. Construction has to go within the general proyektno - budget cost, and only after its excess there are bases for recalculation in the current prices of date of an expected overlap of cost. "The delta - the pilot" will provide with own means construction this year. Provided that the dam will be under construction. It is provided by the enterprise financial plan which is claimed by Cabinet of Ministers, i.e. any risk that the financial resource won't suffice, today isn't present.
The silting of the approach channel changed in connection with the end of construction of a dam on shoal?
Unambiguously decreased. Now we come to the contract on engineering monitoring which will be able unambiguously to tell about extent of influence of this site and a dam as a whole on a zanosimost. Already now I can tell definitely that on the protected two-kilometer site the channel zanosimost considerably was reduced. But fully to draw a conclusion about need of technical adjustments - it is possible only on the basis of engineering monitoring.
On the approach channel in pine-forest part of depth it is more, exactly there work земкараваны. That part which you "protected" has steady depths. As far as it was expedient to do this part of a dam as far as it was expedient to protect this part of the channel, instead of in pine-forest part?
There was a letter of Rechtransproyekt of 2007 on V. Bezdolny, as the answer to any very specific inquiry. The reply to the request was given and was separately mentioned in one paragraph that "first of all it is necessary to block North - east part of the branch from distribution of the Danube Currents". This site of a dam carries out double function, namely closes 2/3 channels from lengthways coastal deposits, and also directs all river stream of the Fast branch in sea approach the channel. The site from a so-called German dam towards the sea closes 1/3 channels, and closes only from lengthways coastal deposits.
The river current which "thrashed" in a dam, it after all anywhere didn't get to...
It "got to". Absolutely unambiguously "got to" and anywhere now doesn't "thrash".>
Where this stream goes?
That to define it we will do engineering monitoring.We will do now measurements of speed of a current, the analysis of behavior of a dam. It is unambiguously possible to tell that current speed in the sea approach channel increased.
You agreed with the Danube biospheric reserve then from the enterprise tried to receive compensation of the harm done to ecology at a rate of 700 thousand UAH, what now a situation?
There was a response on a claim. On a state "for today" the body, tried to claim compensation of damage, doesn't take further steps. Probably, I convinced the answer to a claim. Anyway, we are sure of illegality of a claim.
How you estimate as far as process of implementation of requirements of the convention of ESPOO can be dragged out?
We say that Ukraine at the end of 2007, without having executed any of the procedures ordered by the Convention, made a final decision on phase 2 realization. The mistake was that in each of the countries of the Convention the competent authority realizing and introducing the Convention has to be established. The final decision was signed by two deputy ministers. On an ESPOO committee question: "what is it?", the answer was given that the decision was made by the Law on the budget for 2008. I consider that the decision was made with a number of violations.
In April, 2008 the competent authority in the state was created is an Interdepartmental coordination council under the leadership of vice-the prime minister. In Bucharest in May 2008 noted that Ukraine in 2007 violated the Convention. Ukraine agreed and withdrew a final decision with the reservation that will execute procedures then will make a correct Final decision.
You just bragged that the final decision on building of object is withdrawn, and at the same time you build a dam. How it can be used by Romania in dispute with Ukraine?
Today a position of Ministry of Transport - an exit to a final decision on the basis of performance of all procedures. I understand as all procedures, carrying out public hearings, or their attempt if they don't take place for the reasons not depending on Ukraine, I think that the Ukrainian party will accept these attempts as carrying out procedures.