Дата публикации статьи в журнале: 4.07.2019
Название журнала: Американский Научный Журнал, Выпуск: № (26) / 2019, Том: 1, Страницы в выпуске: 34-46
, State Corporation “Rosatom” Center for Global Ecology, Lomonosov Moscow State University,
, Burnazyan Medical and Biological Center,
Анотация: The regulatory mechanisms for environmental
protection have been reformed since 2014. These reforms engage the ecological aspects of the enterprise’s
activities that have a negative environmental impact
(NEI). This includes enterprises from the nuclear industry. The list of priority actions has been developed in
order to stop using outdated and inefficient technologies. Enterprises are switching to the principle of using
the best available technologies (BAT) and implementing modern technologies. Laws and regulations for defining the acceptable environmental impact with the
use of BAT principles are being developed. The main
BAT principles are being integrated into the national
regulatory system for products (goods) manufacturing,
work execution and provision of services.
Данные для цитирования: V.A. Grachev N.I. Kurysheva . NEW REGULATORY MECHANISMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. Американский Научный Журнал. Науки о Земле. 4.07.2019; № (26) / 2019(1):34-46.
Список литературы: References
1. Law of the Russian Federation “On Environmental Protection FZ-7”, 2002
2. Law of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist
Republic “On air protection”, 1982
3. Land Code of the Russian Federation, 2001
4. Federal Law “On Subsurface Resources”,
5. Forest Code of the Russian Federation, 1997
6. Federal Law “On Natural Curative Resources,
Curative-Health Locations and Resorts”, 1995
7. Federal Law “On Specially Protected Natural
8. Federal Law “On the Animal World”, 1995
9. Water Code of the Russian Federation, 1995
10. Federal Law “On Ecological Expertise”, 1995
11. Federal Law “On the Use of Atomic Energy”,
12. Law of the Russian Federation “On the Protection of the Consumer s’ Rights”, 1996
13. Law of the Russian Federation “On Standardization”, 1993
14. Law of the Russian Federation “On Certification of Products and Services”, 1993
15. Law of the Russian Federation “On Urban
Planning in the Russian Federation”, 1992
16. Environmental Protection Management in the
USA, N.V.Kruchinina, 2012, http://naukarus.com/upravlenie-ohranoy-okruzhayuschey-sredy-v-ssha
17. Journal of Environmental Engineering ASCE
(URL:http://ascelibrary.org/toc/joeedu/0/0 (date: September 26, 2016)
18. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects
of certain plans and programs on the environment URL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001L0042&qid=1
474873910552&from=EN (date: September 26, 2016)
19. Directive 85/337/EEC On the assessment of
the effects of certain public and. private projects on the
environment URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31985L0337&from=
EN (date: September 26, 2016)
20. N. Forcada, A. Alvarez, P. Love , and D. Edwards D. (2016). “Rework in Urban Renewal Projects
in Colombia”. J. Infrastruct. Syst., 10.1061 / (ASCE)
IS.1943-555X. 0000332. 04016034.
21. Ion Viorel Matei, Laura Ungureanu Survey on
integrated modelling applied in environmental engineering and management / Environmental engineering
and management journal 13(4): 1027-1038 April 2014.
22. Desta Mebratu Sustainability and sustainable
development: Historical and conceptual review // Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 18, Issue 6, November 1998, pages 493-520.
23. R. Burdge, F. Vanclay. Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series. Impact
Assessment, 1996, p. 45; N. Taylor, H. Bryan, C.
Goodrich. Social assessment: theory, process and technologies, 3rd edition. Middleton, USA: Social Ecology
Press, 2004, p. 140.
24. C. Wood. Environmental Impact Assessment:
a comparative review, 2nd edition. Essex, UK: Pearson
Education Limited, 2003, p. 230.
25. D. Buchan. Buy-in and social capital: by-products of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment
and Project Appraisal, 2003, p. 169.
26. F. Vanclay. International principles for social
impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Assessment, 2003, p. 5.
27. Umberto Baresia, Karen J. Vellab, Neil G.
Sipea. Bridging the divide between theory and guidance in strategic environmental assessment: A path for
Italian regions / Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 62, January 2017, pages 14-24.
28. Francois Retiefa, Alan Bondb, Jenny Poped,
Angus Morrison-Saunderse, Nicholas King. Global
megatrends and their implications for environmental
assessment practice / Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 61, November 2016, pages 52-
29. Urmila Jha-Thakur, B. Thomas Fischer. 25
years of the UK EIA System: Strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats / Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 61, November 2016, pages
30. Mari Kågström Between ‘best’ and ‘good
enough’: How consultants guide quality in environmental assessment / Environmental Impact Assessment
Review Volume 60, September 2016, pages 169-175.
Online magazine “NAUKOVEDENIYE” http://naukovedenie.ru Volume 9, No.1 (January – February)
31.Tataina Perminovaa, Natalia Sirinaa, Bertrand
Larattea, Natalia Baranovskaya, Leonid Rikhvanov
Methods for land use impact assessment: A review /
Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 60,
September 2016, pages 64-74.