01.02.202427.05.2017

Ke - the coefficient of the ecological situation and ecological significance for a given territory, will be taken equal to 1.7;

σ - pollution hazard indicator, taking into account the type of contaminated area, will be taken equal to 0.6.

Mon = 27550 × 1.085 × 1.7 × 0.6 × 0.000252 = 7.68 rub.

Table 21

Cleaning efficiency

.2 Determination of the conditional economic effect as a result of the implementation of treatment facilities

Taking into account the average treatment efficiency by type of pollutants of 99.9%, the conditional payment for pollution before the implementation of treatment facilities would be 230,493.58 rubles.

Then the conditional savings will be:

Eu = P’year - Pyear = 230501.26 - 7.68 = 230493.58 rub.

Considering the frequency of discharges, the conditional effect may be reduced.

.3 Determination of the conditional payback period for initial capital investments

Current = K /Ey+ Ezp,

where K is the initial capital investment;

Ezp - economic benefit when reducing the work shift, rub.

Ezp = Z”osn - Zosn

Ezp = 1150503.9 - 656853.6 = 493650.3 rub.

Current = 738000/ 493650.3 + 230493.58 = 1.019 years.

For environmental projects, this payback period can be considered acceptable.

7.4.4 Determination of environmental and economic effect

The environmental and economic effect of the project under consideration can be defined as the ratio of savings on payments for environmental pollution to the given costs.

Ee-ek = 421247/660008 = 0.63

that is, 1 ruble of investment in capital investments for 1 year and in the operation of the system allows you to get 0.41 rubles in savings in environmental pollution fees.

Conclusion

The proposed device for treating wastewater containing petroleum products is cost-effective, since its installation allows one to obtain a conditional annual economic effect in the amount of 650,027.8 rubles with a conditional payback period of the initial investment of 13 months, which is considered acceptable for environmental projects.

The amount of initial capital investments required to implement the project will be 738,000 rubles.

The operating costs of the installation per year will amount to 1,970,743.2 rubles, which is significantly less than the operating costs of existing treatment facilities, which amount to 2,207,534.3 rubles.

The specific cost of treating 1 m3 of industrial wastewater will be 70.05 rubles, which is significantly less than the existing cost, which is 97.97 rubles.

Comparative characteristics of European and Ukrainian drinking water quality standards
In Europe, drinking water quality standards are as close as possible to WHO recommendations, so more than half of the EU quality standards completely duplicate the WHO recommended indicators, and slightly less...

Prospects and issues for the conservation of biota and biological resources of the shelf in the Far East
The Pacific waters of Russia stretch for thousands of kilometers from north to south, creating conditions for the existence of extremely diverse marine flora, fauna and ecosystems: from subtropics...

Sewage treatment facilities with a capacity of 3 thousand m3day
When designing sewerage treatment facilities, a necessary condition is to protect the environment (water and air basins) from pollution generated during the purification process...

Climate and weather as active environmental factors
Various combinations of physical environmental factors and atmospheric air form weather and climate, ensure human life and health. Socio-political...

Payments for negative environmental impact

One of the basic principles of environmental protection is payment for environmental use.

All business entities can own or rent cars. Household and industrial waste is generated in the office and industrial premises. In addition, entities can discharge wastewater (for example, from a boiler house) into a water body. All this creates the following types of harmful effects on the environment:

Emission of pollutants into the atmosphere from stationary sources;

Emission of pollutants into the atmosphere from mobile sources;

Discharge of pollutants into surface and underground water bodies;

Waste disposal.

In this case, the accrual base is determined separately for each type of payment. Based on this indicator, three types of environmental payments can be distinguished:

Standard payment is a payment for pollution, the actual volumes of which do not exceed permissible standards;

Limit fee - a fee for pollution, the actual volumes of which exceed the permissible standards, but are less than the established limits;

Over-limit fee – a fee for above-limit pollution, i.e. pollution, the actual volume of which is higher than the established limits.

Standards for maximum permissible emissions of pollutants into the environment, waste disposal limits, and permissible levels of impact on the environment are subject to approval by the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia.

The procedure for calculating the fee also depends on the type of payment, namely:

The standard fee is determined by multiplying the corresponding fee rates by the amount of the specified types of pollution;

The limit fee is determined by multiplying the corresponding fee rates by the difference between the limit and maximum permissible volumes of pollution;

Payment for excess pollution of the environment is determined by multiplying the corresponding rates of payment for pollution within the established limits by the amount of excess of the actual volumes of pollution over the established limits and multiplying these amounts by a five-fold increasing factor.

Payment rates for negative impacts on the environment are currently established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 344. For each ingredient of a pollutant (waste), two payment standards have been established - for pollution within acceptable standards (normative pollution) and for pollution within established limits (limit pollution). The fee rate to be applied to a specific type of pollution consists of two components - the corresponding fee standard and a coefficient that takes into account environmental factors. In addition, additional coefficients are provided: additional coefficient 2 is applied for specially protected natural areas, regions of the Far North (equivalent areas) and zones of environmental disaster, as well as additional coefficients for certain types of pollution.

The final payment amount is determined by summing the products received for each type of pollution.

Formulas for calculating environmental payments

For payments for emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air by stationary sources and payments for discharges of pollutants into surface and underground water bodies:

In this case, the maximum permissible volume of pollution means an established permissible pollution standard, i.e., a certain approved level of pollution, above which environmental payments are calculated as limit payments, and below as standard payments.

Nitric oxide

Let's calculate the amount of payment for emissions into atmospheric air for each harmful substance.

The carbon monoxide charge is calculated as standard:

50 x 0.6 x 1.9 x 1.2 x 2.05 = 140.22 rub.,

Magnitude	Characteristic	Norm

		Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 344
	Coefficient taking into account environmental factors (state of atmospheric air) for the Central Economic Region of the Russian Federation
	Coefficient for emissions of harmful substances into the atmospheric air of cities
	Coefficient to payment standards(*)	Clause 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of 01.01.2001 No. 371-FZ “On the federal budget for 2012 and for the planning period of 2013 and 2014” (clause 23 of the Methodological Recommendations)
(*) The standard payment for sulfur dioxide emissions within the maximum permissible limit was established in 2005, therefore an adjustment factor of 1.67 is applied to it (clause 24 of the Methodological Recommendations)

The charge for nitric oxide is calculated as a limit:

((35 x 35) + (35 x (40 – 38) x 5)) x 1.9 x 1.2 x 2.05 = 7361.55 rub.,

Magnitude	Characteristic	Norm
	Actual emissions for the reporting quarter, t
	Standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established permissible emission standards

The payment for nitrogen dioxide is calculated as above the limit:

((50 x 52) + ((130 – 50) x 260) + (130 – (50 + 75) x 260 x 5)) x 1.9 x 1.2 x 2.05 = .6 rub.,

Magnitude	Characteristic	Norm
	Actual emissions for the reporting quarter, t
	Standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established permissible emission standards	Appendix No. 1 to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 01.01.2001 No. 344
	Standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established emission limits	Appendix No. 1 to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 01.01.2001 No. 344
	Five times the coefficient for excess pollution
	The value of the coefficient taking into account environmental factors for atmospheric air in the Central Economic Region	Appendix No. 2 to the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 01.01.2001 No. 344

The total amount of environmental payments actually accrued for the first quarter of 2012 will thus be:

140.22 + 7,361.55 + .6 = .37 rub.

IMPORTANT IN WORK

In the absence of standards, the weight is considered above the limit and is charged 25 times.

Payment for emissions of pollutants into the air from mobile sources

Payment for emissions of pollutants into the atmospheric air from mobile sources of negative impact is determined by multiplying the corresponding payment standards for the specific type of fuel used by the amount of such fuel consumed by the mobile source during the reporting period, and summing up the results obtained (paragraph 3, paragraph 2, paragraph 26 Methodical recommendations). The amount of fuel consumed is determined on the basis of primary accounting documents (waybills). This, in particular, is indicated by the letter of Rostechnadzor dated January 1, 2001 No. 04-09/1037.

The standard payment for mobile sources of pollution is established per ton of fuel consumed, depending on its type (paragraph 2, paragraph 2, paragraph 26 of the Methodological Recommendations). The standard fee for using 1 ton of unleaded gasoline was established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 410. The specified standard fee is adjusted in this case by multiplying by correction factors (clause 18, formula (4) clause 2, clause 26 of the Methodological Recommendations) .

The standard is set for 1 ton of fuel. But since gasoline consumption is measured in liters, it is converted into tons, using the fuel density indicator. In accordance with the explanations of the tax authorities, depending on the brand of motor gasoline, the following average density values can be used (letter of the Federal Tax Service of Russia dated January 1, 2001 No. 03-3-09/0412/23@):

For AI-92 – 0.735 g/cc. cm (i.e. 0.735 kg/l);

For AI-95 – 0.750 g/cc. cm (i.e. 0.750 kg/l).

Example 2.

AI-92 gasoline consumption for the first quarter is 0,2205 t = (300 l x 0.735 kg/l: 1000 kg).

AI-95 gasoline consumption will be 0,525 t = (700 l x 0.750 kg/l: 1000 kg).

The payment for emissions by companies using AI-92 gasoline is equal to 1,34 rub. = (1.3 x 1.9 x 1.2 x 1.93 x 2.05 x 0.2205 t).

The emission fee for companies using AI-95 gasoline is 3,19 rub. = (1.3 x 1.9 x 1.2 x 1.93 x 2.05 x 0.525 t).

As a result, the total amount of payment for the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere from mobile sources of pollution in the first quarter of 2012 was:

1,34 rub. + 3,19 rub. = 4.53 rub.

Payment for discharges of pollutants into water bodies

Payments for discharges of pollutants into surface water bodies are divided into:

payment within the established discharge standards; payment within the established discharge limits; payment for over-limit discharges (for exceeding established discharge standards or established discharge limits, as well as for discharges in the absence of permits).

The standards for payment for discharges of pollutants into surface and underground water bodies are also established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 344. It also determined the values of coefficients that take into account environmental factors (the state of water bodies) for sea and river basins.

The actual mass of annual discharges of pollutants is indicated by the nature user in the annual state statistical reporting in form 2-tp (vodkhoz), compiled on the basis of processing the results of primary reporting logs (POD-11, POD-12 and POD-13).

Payment for discharges of pollutants in amounts not exceeding the permissible discharge standards established for the user of natural resources is determined by the following formula:

Mon water – payment for the discharge of pollutants within the established discharge standards (rubles);

Sni water – standard payment for the discharge of 1 ton of the i-th pollutant within the established emission standards (rubles);

Mni water is the permissible discharge of the i-th pollutant within the established standard (t).

Payment for the discharge of pollutants within established limits is calculated using the following formula:

where: i – type of pollutant (i = 1, 2, 3...n);
Pl water – payment for the discharge of pollutants within the established emission standards (rub.);

Mi water – actual mass of discharge of the i-th pollutant (t);

Mni water – permissible discharge of the i-th pollutant within the established standard (t);

Mli water – discharge of the i-th pollutant within the established limit (t);
Kz water is a coefficient that takes into account environmental factors (the state of water bodies) for sea and river basins. For specially protected natural areas, including medical and recreational areas and resorts, as well as for regions of the Far North and equivalent areas, the Baikal natural territory and zones of environmental disaster, an additional coefficient of 2 is applied;
Kin – indexation coefficient of payment for negative impact on the environment. It is established annually by the law on the budget of the Russian Federation.

Payment for excess discharge of pollutants is determined by multiplying the corresponding rates of payment for pollution within the established limits by the amount of excess of the actual mass of discharges over the established limits, summing the resulting products by type of pollutant and multiplying these amounts by a five-fold increasing factor.

where: i – type of pollutant (i = 1, 2, 3...n);
Psl water – payment for excess discharge of pollutants (rub.);
Sli water – standard payment for the discharge of 1 ton of the i-th pollutant within the established emission limits (rubles);

Mi water – actual mass of discharge of the i-th pollutant (t);
Mli water – permissible discharge of the i-th pollutant within the established limit (t);

Kz water is a coefficient that takes into account environmental factors (the state of water bodies) for sea and river basins. For specially protected natural areas, including medical and recreational areas and resorts, as well as for regions of the Far North and equivalent areas, the Baikal natural territory and zones of environmental disaster, an additional coefficient of 2 is applied;
Kin – indexation coefficient of payment for negative impact on the environment. It is established annually by the law on the budget of the Russian Federation.

Payment for the discharge of wastewater into filtration fields is not charged if the norms for the load of wastewater and pollutants and the rules for operating structures established by the nature user are observed. If these conditions are not met, the payment is determined as for discharge into a water body within the established limits. If violation of the rules for operating structures and non-compliance with loading standards for wastewater and substances leads to contamination of groundwater, payments are charged as for excess pollution.

Payment for the discharge of wastewater into agricultural irrigation fields, subject to compliance with the standards for the load of wastewater and pollutants established by the nature user, is determined as for discharge into a water body within the permissible standards. In case of non-compliance with operating rules and load standards, as well as in case of groundwater pollution, payments are charged as for excess pollution.

In the event that pollutants not provided for when the project is approved are supplied with wastewater to filtration fields or agricultural irrigation fields, a fee is charged as for excess pollution.

When discharging pollutants into special drainage devices (discharge and drainage channels), beams, etc., through which wastewater enters a water body, the fee is determined as for the discharge within acceptable standards. In case of discharge of pollutants onto the terrain without the appropriate permit, payments are charged as for excess pollution.

The coefficient applied to the fee standard for the discharge of suspended solids is calculated using the following formula:


S_f + S_add.

where C_f is the background concentration of suspended substances in the water of a water body, used in calculating the maximum permissible discharge;

S_add. – permissible increase in the content of suspended substances for a water body.

Example.

S_add. = 0.25 mg/dm3 for water bodies of first category fishery importance, as well as for water bodies used for drinking and domestic water supply.

The total fee for the discharge of pollutants into surface water bodies is determined by the formula:

Example 3.

We will calculate payments using the example of the discharge of iron, suspended substances, and petroleum products into a water body of second category fisheries importance.

Name of pollutants	Actual volume of discharges, t	Permissible discharge standard,	Reset limit, t
Suspended solids

Sulfates

We will calculate the amount of payment for discharges into a water body for each harmful substance.

Payment for suspended solids is calculated as standard:

K= ---- = 0.096

9.7 + 0.75 mg/dm3

3.368 x 20.39 x 0.096 x 1.17 x 2.05 = RUB 15.81

3.368 – actual volume of emissions for the reporting quarter;

20.39 – standard payment for discharges of 1 ton of pollutants within the established permissible emission standards (Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 344);

1.17 – coefficient taking into account environmental factors for the Central Economic Region of the Russian Federation (clause 19 of the Methodological Recommendations; Resolution No. 344);

2.05 – coefficient to the payment standards established by clause 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of January 1, 2001 No. 371-FZ “On the federal budget for 2012 and for the planning period of 2013 and 2014” (clause 23 of the Methodological Recommendations).

Payment for chlorides is calculated as a limit:

(34.8 x 0.9 + 0.9 x (34.8 – 8.893) x 5) x 1.17 x 1 x 2.05 = 354.74 rub.,

34.8 – actual volume of emissions for the reporting quarter, t;

0.9 – standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established permissible emission standards (Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 344);

1 – additional coefficient 2 with a value of 1 (resolution No. 344);

See the characteristics of odds 1.17 and 2.05 above.

Payment for sulfates is calculated as above the limit:

(0.029 x 2.8 + (0.052 – 0.029) x 14 +0.052 – (0.029 + 0.022) x 14x5) x 1.17 x 1 x 2.05 = 1.14 rub.,

0.029 – actual volume of emissions for the reporting quarter, t;

2.8 – standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established permissible emission standards (Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 344);

14 – standard payment for the emission of 1 ton of pollutants within the established emission limits (Appendix No. 1 to Resolution No. 344);

5 – five-fold coefficient for excess pollution;

See above for characteristics of coefficients 1, 1.17 and 2.05.

The total amount of environmental payments actually accrued for the first quarter of 2012 will therefore be:

15.81 + 354.74 + 1.14 = 371.69 rubles.

Waste disposal fee

In accordance with paragraphs 3, 4 of Art. 18 of Law No. 89-FZ, individual entrepreneurs and legal entities operating in the field of waste management develop draft waste generation standards and limits on their disposal, which, in accordance with the Rules for the development and approval of waste generation standards and limits on their disposal, approved by the resolution Government of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 461, are subject to approval by the authorized territorial executive body.

Requirements for the management of hazardous waste are established in paragraphs 3, 4 of Art. 14 of Law No. 89-FZ.

Objects subject to water tax are listed in paragraph 1 of Art. 333.9 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The following types of water use are subject to tax: water intake from water bodies; use of the water area of water bodies, with the exception of rafting of wood in rafts and purses; use of water bodies without water intake for hydropower purposes; use of water bodies for the purpose of rafting wood in rafts and purses.

The following are not recognized as objects of taxation by water tax: water withdrawal from water bodies for irrigation of agricultural lands (including meadows and pastures), watering of horticultural, gardening, summer cottage land plots, land plots of citizens’ personal subsidiary plots, for watering and servicing livestock and poultry that are located owned by agricultural organizations and citizens.

BASEMENT - NOTICE

Taxpayers of water tax in accordance with Art. 333.8 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation recognizes, in particular, organizations engaged in special and/or special water use in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Organizations carrying out water use on the basis of water use agreements or decisions on the provision of water bodies for use, respectively, concluded or adopted after the entry into force of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, are not recognized as taxpayers.

As noted in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated January 1, 2001 No. /14, in accordance with the Water Code, which was in force until January 1, 2007, regulatory legal acts adopted in its development, and the Law of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 2395-1 “On Subsoil » special and/or special water use was carried out exclusively on the basis of a license. At the same time, the use of surface water bodies was carried out on the basis of a license for water use and an agreement for the use of water bodies, issued and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, and the use of groundwater bodies - on the basis of a license for the use of subsoil for the extraction of groundwater, issued in accordance with with the requirements of the Law “On Subsoil”.

Thus, before January 1, 2007, payers of water tax were organizations and individuals who used water bodies on the basis of these licenses.

GOOD TO KNOW

The Water Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force on January 1, 2007, abolished the licensing system for the use of surface water bodies.

According to Art. Art. 9–11 of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, the right to use surface water bodies is acquired on the basis of a water use agreement or a decision to provide water bodies for use, i.e., within the framework of contractual civil legal relations. In accordance with Art. 20 of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, a non-tax fee is charged for the use of a water body on the basis of an agreement. In this regard, paragraph 2 of Art. 12 Federal Law of 01.01.2001 No. 73-FZ Art. 333.8 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation has been supplemented with a clause according to which organizations and individuals who use water on the basis of water use agreements or decisions on the provision of water bodies for use, respectively concluded and adopted after the entry into force of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, are not recognized as payers of water tax.

However, it should be noted that these provisions of the Water Code of the Russian Federation and the Tax Code of the Russian Federation relate to the use of surface water bodies. As for the use of underground water bodies, after the entry into force of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, the regulatory framework for collecting water tax in relation to such water use did not change, since on the basis of Part 3 of Art. 9 of the Water Code of the Russian Federation, individuals and legal entities acquire the right to use underground water bodies on the grounds and in the manner established by the legislation on subsoil.

Thus, the use of underground water bodies is subject to water tax, and water users carrying out this type of water use are payers of water tax in accordance with Chapter. 25.2 “Water tax” of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of licenses for the right to use subsoil for the purpose of extracting groundwater, issued both before January 1, 2007, and after this period.

BASEMENT - NOTICE

According to Art. 10 of the Law “On Subsoil”, subsoil plots for the extraction of groundwater are provided for use for a certain period - up to 25 years.

The provision of subsoil for use is formalized by permission in the form of a license, which includes a standard form with the State Emblem of the Russian Federation, as well as text, graphic and other annexes that are an integral part of the license and define the basic conditions for the use of subsoil (Article 11 of the Law “On Subsoil”) . The regulation on the procedure for licensing the use of subsoil was approved by Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation dated January 1, 2001 No. 3314-1.

The form of the license form for the use of subsoil is given in Appendix 4 to the Administrative Regulations of the Federal Agency for Subsoil Use for the performance of state functions for the issuance, execution and registration of licenses for the use of subsoil, amendments and additions to licenses for the use of subsoil plots, as well as re-issuance of licenses and acceptance , including on the proposal of the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources and other authorized bodies, decisions on early termination, suspension and limitation of the right to use subsoil plots. This document was approved by order of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources dated January 1, 2001 No. 315.

The object of taxation by water tax according to paragraphs. 1 clause 1 art. 333.9 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation recognizes, in particular, this type of use of water bodies as water abstraction from water bodies.

It follows from the provisions of the Water Code of the Russian Federation that water abstraction represents the withdrawal of water from water bodies. As we noted at the very beginning of the article, water bodies are divided into surface and underground, while groundwater bodies include groundwater basins and aquifers. The boundaries of groundwater bodies are determined in accordance with the legislation on subsoil, which follows from Art. 5 VK RF.

Water bodies are used for drinking and domestic water supply purposes, and for these purposes surface and underground water bodies protected from pollution and clogging must be used, the suitability of which for these purposes is determined on the basis of sanitary and epidemiological conclusions. The procedure for using underground water bodies for the purposes of drinking and domestic water supply is established by the legislation on subsoil (Articles 37, 43 of the Water Code of the Russian Federation).

When water is withdrawn, the tax base is determined as the volume of water taken from a water body during the tax period, which follows from clause 2 of Art. 333.10 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The tax period for water tax is a quarter (Article 333.11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The volume of water taken is determined based on the readings of water measuring instruments reflected in the primary water use accounting log.

In the absence of water measuring instruments, the volume of water taken is determined based on the operating time and productivity of the technical equipment. If it is impossible to determine the volume of water based on the operating time and productivity of technical equipment, the volume of water taken is determined based on water consumption standards.

Water intake units are equipped with water measuring equipment and water meters, therefore, when drawing water from underground sources, the volume of water taken should be determined by the readings of water measuring devices reflected in the water use log.

The tax rates at which water tax is calculated are determined by Art. 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, according to clause 3 of which the water tax rate for water abstraction from water bodies for water supply to the population is set at 70 rubles. for 1 thousand cubic meters m of water taken from a water body.

So, as the analysis of Art. 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, in relation to water intake carried out for water supply to the population, the lowest tax rate is established, which can rightfully be applied by housing and communal services organizations providing water supply to the population.

The position of regulatory and judicial authorities on the issue of applying the tax rate of 70 rubles. for 1 cubic m of water

As indicated in the letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 01.01.2001 No. /24, payers of water tax when withdrawing water from groundwater bodies, having the right to apply the specified rate of water tax, can be recognized, in particular, organizations that collect water from underground water bodies on on the basis of a license for the use of subsoil for the extraction of groundwater, indicating the intended use of the extracted groundwater (water use for the purposes of drinking and domestic water supply to the population (water supply for housing)) and the permitted (maximum permissible) volume of water withdrawn from the groundwater body. This rate applies to the volume of water withdrawn from a water body that is actually used to supply water to the population.

If the license for the use of subsoil for the extraction of groundwater does not indicate the intended use of the withdrawn water or when using water bodies without a license issued in the prescribed manner (if obtaining one is provided for by law), water tax is paid at the rates established by clause 1 of Art. 333.12 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

Carrying out water use without a license during the period of renewal of a water use license (provided that the relevant documents are sent for renewal before the expiration of the previous license) is not a violation of the water use rules.

The judiciary does not agree with this opinion of the Russian Ministry of Finance, which is confirmed by a number of court decisions.

During an audit, the tax authority revealed non-payment of water tax by a housing and communal services organization due to unlawful application in calculating the water tax rate in the amount of 70 rubles. for 1 thousand cubic meters m of water for water supply to the population in the absence of a license for the right to use water. According to tax authorities, the housing and communal services organization should have calculated the tax at the rate established by clause 1 of Art. 333.12 Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

As follows from the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated January 1, 2001 No. A/8, the court rightfully rejected the arguments of the tax authority that in the absence of a license for water use, the taxpayer does not have the right to apply a preferential tax rate. Chapter 25.2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not contain norms obliging a taxpayer who withdraws water from water bodies for water supply to the population in the absence of a water use license to pay tax at the general rate.

Now a few words about water losses. Tax officials, having checked the correctness of tax calculations by the taxpayer, added an additional amount of water tax, the basis for which was the conclusion that the rate of 70 rubles. for 1 thousand cubic meters m is used only for the purpose of water supply to the population based on the volume of water sold without taking into account water losses when transferring water to the population. In turn, according to tax authorities, losses are taxed at the rates established by clause 1 of Art. 333.12 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. Having disagreed with this decision of the tax authority, the organization went to court.

The court satisfied the organization’s request to invalidate the decision of the tax authority, while in the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North Caucasus District dated January 1, 2001 No. F08-7518/2008, it indicated that when water is withdrawn, the tax base is determined as the volume of water taken from the water body during the tax period . In this case, the volume of water taken from a water body is determined based on the readings of water measuring instruments reflected in the primary accounting log of water use.

From the above norms it follows that the total tax base for water tax is determined as the sum of the volumes of water withdrawn during the tax period for water supply to the population and for other needs. The court concluded that the tax base is determined and the tax rate is set based on the volume of water taken from water bodies, and not delivered to consumers, i.e., taking into account the losses of water that occur during its collection, purification and delivery. Within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Art. 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the preferential water tax rate applies to all volumes of water withdrawn for water supply to the population, and not to the volumes of water actually consumed by the population.

Calculation of water tax in accordance with Art. Art. 333.10 and 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation involves taking into account the purpose of water withdrawal from the source, and not the volume of water actually sold.

Provision of paragraph 2 of Art. 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes a fivefold increase in the tax rate when water is withdrawn in excess of established limits, does not apply to the tax rate determined by clause 3 of this article. The Federal Tax Service of Russia reported this back in 2005 in a letter dated January 1, 2001 No. 21-3-05/32. In particular, the letter states that when water is withdrawn in excess of the established quarterly (annual) water use limits for water supply to the population, there will be a fivefold increase in the tax rates of the water tax Ch. 25.2 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation is not provided for. This position of tax authorities is confirmed by judicial practice. In particular, the resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated January 1, 2001 No. KA-A states that the fee for excess water use is established by clause 2 of Art. 333.12 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation only for water users applying the rates established by clause 1 of Art. 333.12 Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The Tax Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for an increase in the tax rate for above-limit water use for water supply to the population.

Housing and communal services organizations that collect water from underground sources for water supply to the population independently calculate the amount of tax, which is determined as the product of the tax base (the volume of water taken according to the readings of water measuring equipment) by the tax rate (70 rubles per 1 thousand cubic meters of water) ( Article 333.13 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

The tax amount is payable at the location of the taxable object no later than the 20th day of the month following the expired tax period (Article 333.14 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation).

Within the same period, i.e., within the period established for paying the tax, a tax declaration must be submitted to the tax authority at the location of the taxable object. If a housing and communal services organization is classified as a major taxpayer, then the tax return should be submitted to the tax authority at the place of registration as a major taxpayer.

Example 5.

Let us give an example of calculating water tax for a housing and communal services enterprise.

Actually water taken is 10,000 m3, including:

For enterprises – 3000 m3, limit – 3000 m3;

For the population – 7000 m3, limit – 50,000 m3.

360 rub. x 3 = 1080 rub. – for enterprises;

70 rub. x 7 = 490 rub. - for the population.

Total: 1080 + 490 = 1570 rub.,

360 rub. – fee for 1 thousand m3 for enterprises, 70 rubles. – payment per 1 thousand m3 for the population.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Economic mechanism for protecting water from pollution (part 2). Adjustment factors

annotation

The issues of validity of increasing coefficients introduced to the accrued payment for pollution and to the amount of damage caused to water bodies are considered. The features of the sizes and names of the coefficients provided for by the relevant regulatory documents are noted. Considerations have been expressed about the possibility of reducing the number of coefficients and establishing more reasonable adjustments to the amount of fees or harm, taking into account specific conditions.

Keywords:

When calculating fees for emissions and discharges of pollutants into the natural environment and assessing damage caused to the environment, the use of various coefficients is provided. The payment standards contain one “coefficient of the environmental situation and ecological significance of the state of water bodies”; the Methodology contains several coefficients that take into account:

K in– environmental factors (state of water bodies);

To from– intensity of the negative impact of harmful (pollutant) substances on a water body;

K vg– natural and climatic conditions depending on the time of year;

K dl– the duration of the negative impact if measures to eliminate it are not taken;

K in– inflation coefficient.

All these coefficients are increasing, with the exception of some established for the seas.

Odds « environmentalsituationsAndenvironmentalsignificancestatewaterobjects"And "taking into accountecobrain teaserfactors (statewaterobjects)", judging by the proximity of their values, they are most likely similar in meaning, although this is not obvious from their names.

Government regulations on fees establish coefficients for the subjects of the Federation within basins, while the Methodology establishes coefficients only for river basins, seas and some additional water bodies. The first of the coefficients makes us assume that in some subjects of the Federation the importance of the “ecological state” is greater, in others it is less. At the same time, it remains unclear how significance is determined - the value of water bodies for certain types of use or the degree of their pollution, what characteristics of the “ecological state” are taken into account in both cases, what gradation is used when determining the values of the coefficients.

A characteristic feature of the coefficients is the equalization of material responsibility for the entry of the same mass of substance into a more or less high-water river of the same basin or region. This is unacceptable from the standpoint of environmental protection and softens the requirements for discharge into tributaries of large rivers, which is most common, particularly in cities. At the same time, to calculate fees and damages in different subjects of the Federation for the same economic entity, different coefficient values will have to be used. For example, when calculating the payment for pollution in the Republic of Karelia, a coefficient of 1.13 was adopted, when calculating harm - 1.51 or 1.51 2 = 3.02 (for water bodies of the Baltic Sea catchment area within the framework of the international convention). In the Stavropol Territory, a coefficient of 1.53 will be applied when calculating fees, and 2.2 when calculating damage.

In addition, when calculating harm to water users located in environmental disaster zones, regions of the Far North, etc. (notes to Table 2 of the Methodology), the user of the Methodology, following its instructions, is put in a difficult position: which coefficients should be increased? From government regulations or from the Methodology, since it establishes that “coefficients of the environmental situation and environmental significance” may increase, i.e., not those “coefficients taking into account environmental factors (state of water bodies)” that are given in the corresponding table of the Methodology.

Let's try to analyze the logic behind establishing the mentioned coefficients.

OddsecologicalwhoasituationsAndenvironmentalsignificancestatewaterobjects range from 1 (for some rivers in the Arctic and Pacific oceans) to 2.2 (for the Kuban River basin in the Krasnodar Territory).

So, if, according to the “Instructional and Methodological Instructions...”, these coefficients are indeed calculated “based on data on the amount of discharged contaminated wastewater in the basins of the main rivers in the context of republics, territories, regions and the volume of flow in the basins of the main rivers in the context of the economic regions of the Russian Federation”, it becomes obvious that this coefficient for the Oka River basin and for the Moscow region in particular should be one of the largest. Thus, according to estimates, the “dilution coefficient” of contaminated wastewater within the Oka basin as a whole is more than 0.1 (i.e., per 100 liters of runoff there are 10 liters of contaminated wastewater - from this figure one can only guess about the degree of load on individual small rivers for the entire basin). The dilution coefficient of contaminated wastewater with local runoff for the Moscow region is more than 0.4. For the Moscow region, the coefficient of the ecological situation and ecological significance of the state of water bodies is 1.2, which is not consistent with the intensity of the impact on water bodies in this subject of the Federation.

In the Rostov region, this figure is close to 0.2, while the increasing coefficient, according to Resolution No. 344, is 1.56. For comparison: for the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) the “dilution coefficient” of contaminated wastewater is 0.00013, while the increasing coefficient for this subject is set to 1.22. Taking into account the two-fold additional increasing coefficient for the regions of the Far North and territories equated to them, such disproportions become even more obvious, since in fact, financial responsibility for pollution is considered greater in those regions where the intensity of impact on water bodies is orders of magnitude lower than in central industrialized regions. subjects of the Federation.

The artificiality of establishing coefficients is aggravated by the fact that the volume of discharge of contaminated wastewater is practically not related to the mass of discharge of pollutants: with a constant volume of wastewater disposal, it will remain the same, despite an increase or decrease in the content of substances in the wastewater, provided that this content is higher than the VAT. Either the logic is incorrect, and the coefficients for “lightly loaded” rivers should be maximum (as a precaution for their further use for wastewater discharge), or the logic is so vague that it cannot be comprehended.

OddsK in, given in Table 2 of Appendix No. 1 to the Methodology, as the name suggests, should reflect environmentalfactors (statewaterobjects). It is almost impossible to clearly understand what factors and what state determine their values. We can only make assumptions.

If we assume that a higher coefficient is introduced for objects that are already significantly polluted, then the difference between the coefficients for Baikal (K coefficient of 2.8) and other water bodies convinces that the assumption is incorrect. If we assume the opposite, then what is the basis for almost equal coefficients, for example, the Don and Lena rivers, the first of which is much more polluted and less abundant in water. If we assume that the coefficients reflect the special value of water bodies (but this is not the “condition of water bodies”), then the high coefficient for Lake Baikal, Ladoga and Onega lakes is understandable, but there is no reason to consider the “salmon” rivers of the North or the same Don and Lena less valuable .

From the standpoint of environmental protection, it is unclear on what basis the amount of harm is reduced (the only coefficients that are not increasing) in the case of identical pollution of the seas at a distance of more than 10 km, i.e., within the territorial sea of the Russian Federation.

And the additional increase in the amount of damage caused to such unique objects as springs, geysers, ponds, flooded quarries, canals, glaciers and snowfields is absolutely puzzling. One has only to think about what kind of impact can be had on them and how much more valuable these objects are socially and environmentally, or what their “ecological state” is.

What “ecological factors” are more significant for canals as opposed to rivers of the same basin; for flooded quarries; for ponds (it doesn’t matter whether they are fish breeding ponds or storage ponds, coolers, post-treatment ponds?); for wetlands, regardless of their value as wetlands? When calculating the harm from pollution of “inter-basin” canals (for example, the Volga-Don) - what is the coefficient? What impact can a person and his activities have on geysers?! (Apparently, the developers of the Methodology were influenced by the situation in Kamchatka in the Valley of Geysers).

It is no less interesting to analyze the validity of attributing the extent of complete or partial depletion of water bodies and the Kw coefficient to harm. Depletion recognizes not only physical depletion (presumably water consumption in excess of established limits or irreversible withdrawal), but also unauthorized water consumption, regardless of volume (clause 20 of the Methodology). That is, the latter is not an assessment of harm, but penalties? And based on ordinary common sense, the rates for restoring water bodies such as seas from depletion unexpectedly look like K in formula (8)!

CoefficientTo from, taking into accountintensitynegativeimpactharmful (polluting)substancesonwateran object, Applies only to wastewater. In the current edition of the Methodology, the determination of its value is related to the degree of excess of the substance content in wastewater over the background, in contrast to the previous edition, when the excess over the MPC was assessed. This approach seems to be more “gentle”, although from an environmental point of view it is quite doubtful.

So, the more “dirty” the background, the less responsibility for the reset. With a 10-fold excess, the coefficient is equal to 1. Starting from 50 times, the coefficient is the same. As they say, “the river doesn’t care anymore”? Further, the Methodology does not indicate which “background” concentration the excess is taken into account: either natural, or adopted when establishing VAT, or actual for a specific release during a period of increased discharge, or in water taken for use from the same water body - average or high dump period?

In general, this approach seems artificial, since the assessment harm It would be more appropriate to establish a coefficient based on the consequences of pollution, namely, at a minimum, based on the degree of excess of quality standards Vin oneobjectunderinfluencereset. It should be noted that exceeding the discharge standard established, as is known, based on the minimum water content (which occurs once every 20 years) may not lead to water pollution under real water content, which is proven by practice. If you turn to the Methodology, you will notice that when calculating losses, it took into account the concentration at the control point of the water body [p. 2.2.1 and formula (6)]. It is not clear why this fairly reasonable and fair technique was rejected, while many of the provisions of this old technique were transferred to the new one.

All examples given in the Methodology consider only situations where the MPC is exceeded at the background site, which is not true for specific water bodies.

CoefficientK vg,taking into accountnaturalclimaticconditionsVdependenciesfromtimemeof the year, applies to all cases provided for by the Methodology, with the exception of waste disposal and decommissioned ships.

Establishing a dependence of determining the amount of harm caused by the discharge of the same mass of pollutant on the time of year is practically absurd and unacceptable from an environmental point of view, especially since the coefficient in question is applied coeveryonesubstances and is universal for any water bodies. Let's try to trace the logic of establishing the coefficient values.

According to the Methodology, harm caused by the discharge of the same mass of any substance in the spring, is considered the largest, and at the same time the smallest coefficient is introduced for floods and floods, which usually occur in the spring, which makes it possible to arbitrarily choose a coefficient when calculating the amount of damage and does not exclude “agreements.”

In summer, the same discharge, according to the Methodology, causes harm less than in winter and autumn. However, if we take into account the processes that actually take place in nature, then such an approach is not justified. In particular, in summer, dilution conditions in most rivers are worse than in spring, and the consequences of the discharge of certain substances do not fit into the logic of adjusting the liability established by the Methodology.

If we are talking, for example, about nutrients, then the adopted approach may take into account the supposed reduction of harm in summer due to their consumption during photosynthesis. However, their discharge in the summer with intense light and photosynthesis leads to an undesirable increase in phytoplankton biomass, deterioration of the organoleptic and aesthetic properties of water (blooming, deterioration of taste, etc.) and the subsequent risk of oxygen deficiency and secondary pollution, and in certain conditions - to the formation of toxic compounds as a result of the abundant development of a certain type of algae. Consequently, artificially adjusting the amount of harm in this case reduces the responsibility of the culprit, despite the threat of subsequent negative changes in the ecosystem and deterioration in the quality of water for human use.

Another example: pesticides are discharged into a water body with waste water from rice farms, which usually occurs in the summer. The use of the Kvg coefficient established by the Methodology reduces the responsibility of the farm, despite the fact that the discharge of toxic substances can have a significant harmful effect on biological objects of the aquatic ecosystem, the peak of vital activity of which occurs in the summer. The question arises: Does the methodology attempt to assess damage to aquatic ecosystems or does it, to a certain extent, meet the financial interests of water users?

Further, for discharges during floods and floods, the smallest coefficient is applied. However, it is known that during floods and floods, for example, the content of petroleum products, suspended solids, fertilizers and substances of aerogenic origin (“former” emissions into the atmospheric air accumulated in snow) usually increases under the influence of melt and rainwater runoff along slopes and small temporary watercourses , through storm sewer systems. What determines the use of the lowest coefficient for the discharge of substances with a greater total load on the water body?

In winter and autumn, the discharge of the same amount of substance is considered equal and less harmful than in the spring (but not during the flood!). However, during the subglacial period, pollutants can cause greater harm, since deteriorating mixing conditions, exclusion of oxygen access and low temperatures in winter prevent the biological decomposition of substances and other self-purification processes. The presence of autumn floods can serve as a basis for disagreements and “agreements”.

It is equally unjustified to introduce this coefficient for other cases. It is interesting that in one of the examples the average coefficient Kvg (winter - spring) is used, but the possibilities of such averaging are not indicated in the text.

CoefficientK dl,taking into accountcurrentdurationimpactharmful (polluting)vesocietiesonwateran objectatNotacceptancemeasuresByhisliquidation. It should be noted that in the new edition of the Methodology for Notapplies when calculating harm for the discharge of substances with wastewater, and thus this edition of the Methodology eliminates the issue of double counting the time of discharge, which was in the previous edition (once - when calculating the mass of discharge using formula (10), the second time - by introducing a coefficient based on same time T, equal to the time from the beginning of the increased discharge to its elimination and already taken into account when calculating the mass).

For emergency situations, the coefficient K dl is established in Table 4 of Appendix 1 of the Methodology, and to a certain extent it is made clear that the table value is used for cases where measures to eliminate the consequences of pollution can actually be taken (collection of garbage, oil from the surface, etc.) . However, for soluble substances it is assumed to be 5, regardless of the duration, which contradicts the name of the coefficient itself, but arbitrarily increases the amount of harm by five times. Thus, ACTUALLY ALL TAXES FOR SOLUBLE SUBSTANCES HAVE BEEN INCREASED BY 5 TIMES.

The question inevitably arises: is it possible to get rid of far-fetched, very contradictory coefficients? It seems possible. So, if we apply the approach we have already used when calculating the “price of water” through payment and tax standards. It consists of estimating the volume of water that would be required to dilute the mass of a substance to the maximum permissible concentration. This approach can be used even within the framework of existing legislation; you just have to read the definition of the concept of “water depletion” in the Water Code of the Russian Federation (dated June 3, 2006 No. 74-FZ).

The method of expressing pollution through the required volumes of dilution water was proposed quite a long time ago - in the “Methodological instructions...” of the USSR State Planning Committee, in a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Economic Sciences, it was used in practice in water balance calculations in the AskVod Yenisei system in the 1970s–1980s years The same approach is used in the European Union to assess the “environmental friendliness” of a technology when choosing the best one available. . For unknown reasons, most likely psychological, this did not become part of domestic practice: for some reason, many specialists thought that we were talking about the artificial dilution of wastewater with fresh water, and not about a conventional value similar, for example, to money as a universal equivalent.

The amount of payment for a “conventional ton” actually represents an estimate of the cost of 1 million m 3 of natural water, “withdrawn from the water fund by pollution,” i.e., this already contains an acceptable approach to environmental assessments of pollution (in contrast to the approach applied in the Methodology for Harm Assessment). With this approach, comparing the volume of depletion with the actual flow of a particular river over a certain period can be a reasonable increasing factor for a particular source of pollution. In fact, if there is a lot of water in the river, but it is unsuitable either for drinking or for aquatic organisms to live in, then we cannot talk about the availability of water resources, i.e. there is depletion. It does not matter at what time of year the pollution occurred, how long the increased discharge occurs, how many times the background concentrations are exceeded, etc. It is possible that additional increasing coefficients can be introduced for specially protected areas.

It is also reasonable to apply the inflation coefficient and Kdl. only for emergency spills of oil and other similar substances and waste disposal? Additionally, a coefficient can be established related to the resistance of substances to biodegradation and based on the value of the COD/BOD 5 ratio. When the COD/BOD ratio is 5 ≤ 2 (or 2.5) it is equal to 1; at higher values it should be increasing. This ratio is already taken into account when monitoring the supply of water for biological treatment (ratio is 2.5) and when assessing the environmental hazard of substances according to international criteria (ratio is 2).

(To be continued)

Bibliography

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 12, 2003 No. 344 “On payment standards for emissions of pollutants into the air from stationary and mobile sources, discharges of pollutants into surface and underground water bodies, disposal of industrial and consumption waste.”
Methodology for calculating the amount of damage caused to water bodies due to violation of water legislation: Approved. By Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation dated April 13, 2009 No. 87, reg. Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation May 25, 2009 No. 13989.
Instructional and methodological guidelines for collecting fees for environmental pollution: Approved. Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation January 26, 1993 (as amended on February 15, 2000), reg. Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation March 24, 1993 No. 19067.
Kravets E. A. Comparative cartographic-analytical method for assessing the intensity of anthropogenic impacts on surface water bodies: Abstract of thesis. diss. ...cand. tech. Sci. – M., 2005.
Methodology for calculating losses caused to the state by violation of water legislation. – M., 1983.
Guidelines for the development of norms and standards for water consumption and water disposal, taking into account the quality of consumed and discharged water in industry. – M., State Planning Committee of the USSR, 1979.
Papisov V.K. Socio-economic assessment of water use when planning industrial production: Author's abstract. diss. ... Doctor of Economics Sci. – M., 1985.
Znamensky V.A. To assess the possibility of using water bodies for wastewater disposal // Water Resources. 1980. No. 3.
Economic aspects and issues of impact on various components of the environment: Institute for the Study of Advanced Technologies; Division of Competitiveness and Sustainable Development of the European Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Office. (An unofficial translation of the document into Russian was carried out by the Project “Harmonization of environmental standards of HPP II, Russia” within the framework of the EU-Russia Cooperation Program in agreement with the European Commission, 2009).
Order of the State Construction Committee of the Russian Federation dated April 6, 2001 No. 75. Methodological recommendations for calculating the quantity and quality of wastewater and pollutants received into the sewerage systems of populated areas (MDK 3-01.01).

atmospheric air conditions (TO, I ) and soil (TO")

Region of the Russian Federation	Name of republics, regions, territories
Northern	Rep. Karelia, Komi; Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Murmansk regions.
Northwestern	Leningrad, Novgorod, Pskov, Kaliningrad regions.
Central	Bryansk, Vladimir, Ivanovo, Kaluga, Kostroma, Oryol, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tver, Tula, Yaroslavl regions, Moscow region
Central
Volgo-Vyatsky	Nizhny Novgorod, Kirov region; Rep. Mari El, Mordovia, Chuvash Republic
Central Black Earth	Belgorod, Voronezh, Kursk, Lipetsk, Tambov regions.
Povolzhsky	Ulyanovsk, Samara, Saratov, Volgograd, Astrakhan, Penza regions; Rep. Tatarstan, Kalmykia
Ural	Kurgan, Orenburg, Perm, Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk regions; Rep. Bashkortostan, Udmurt Republic.

The coefficients K e a, K e p can increase for cities and large industrial centers by 20%. For example, for Moscow K e a = 1.9-1.2. In case of emissions from fires at landfills located in environmental disaster zones, regions of the Far North, in national parks, specially protected and protected areas, as well as in territories covered by international conventions, K e a, K e p P increase by 2 times.

Since specific economic damage in regulatory documents is given in rubles/conventional. t, it is advisable to express the mass of the i-th pollutant in tons per ton of fuel (t/tgor). As a rule, the concentration of pollutants in the air during fires is expressed in a different dimension: in % vol., mg/m, ppm, etc. In this case, the known concentration of the i-th pollutant is converted into the desired t/tfuel (tons per ton of fuel). If the concentration of a pollutant in combustion products is given in mg/m, then this is done by multiplying the mass of burned material (t) by the concentration of the th pollutant per unit volume of air (t/m) and by the total volume of combustion products (m/t) emitted unit of mass of combustible material. Data on the volume of combustion products released during the combustion of a ton of fuel can be found in table. 2.12, as well as in reference literature or calculated using formulas if the elemental composition or chemical formula of the combustible material is known.

If the concentration of pollutants in combustion products is given in g/kg or mg/kg, then the task is simplified and data on the volume of combustion products is not required. You just need to convert the concentration into the desired dimension (t/fuel) and take into account the mass of the burned material.

The total amount of harmful substances, taking into account their toxicity, is determined as the sum of the products of the mass of burnt material by the specific gravity of the i-th pollutant and by the relative hazard index.

The mass of burnt material O g, t, is found from the actual data specified in the relevant documents. If such data is not available, then reference data is used that regulates the conditions of storage, handling and transportation of flammable materials at technosphere facilities.

Damage from pollution of water bodies as a result of the ingress of hazardous chemical substances (hazardous chemical substances), unburned materials, fire extinguishing and other chemical agents used to eliminate the consequences of fires and accidents is determined by the formula

U e-e in = K a · K e in ·∑ y beat in (1/ MPC рхi ·М i)

where K a is the accident rate equal to 10;

K e v - coefficient of the ecological situation and ecological significance of the state of the water basin in the region where the fire or accident occurred (Volga River Basin 1.16);

u ud a - specific economic damage from emissions of pollutants into water bodies, rub./conv. t (see below). Its change is associated with inflation processes in the country and is adjusted annually;

MPC рх – maximum permissible concentration of a pollutant in a reservoir used for fishery purposes, mg/l; M i - mass of the i-th pollutant, t

When the land surface is polluted as a result of spills of flammable liquids, flammable liquids and hazardous chemicals, the amount of damage is determined by multiplying the corresponding specific damage by the mass of each type of pollutant, taking into account its hazard class (Table 6) and summing the resulting products by type of pollutant, taking into account the coefficient of the environmental situation and environmental significance soils at the accident site ( K e p) and accident rate ( TO A=10):

U p ee = 10 K e p ∑ y ud n М i (2.11)

where yd n is the specific economic damage from soil pollution, rub./t (taking into account the toxicity class of the pollutant), (see below); M i - the actual mass of the i-th pollutant, i.e. If the actual amount of the pollutant is indicated in cubic meters, then its mass is found taking into account the density of the substance.

Compensation for damages calculated using the above methodology allows you to compensate for the costs of returning the OS to its pre-accident state. For example, when water bodies are polluted with oil, payment for the damage caused is used to carry out work to localize the spill, collect oil from the surface, clean up the coastline, rescue animals, etc.

The term hazardous substances was introduced instead of the previously used SDYAV (potently toxic substances).

Specific economic damage at beat taking into account the price indexation coefficient. For air -2.12, for reservoirs - 265.7; soil - 444.

1 option

1. A set of co-living organisms of various species and the conditions of their existence, which are naturally dependent on each other -:

A. Population

B. Ecological system

B. Consortium

2. The ability of organisms to tolerate deviations of environmental factors from their optimal values:

A. Adaptation

B. Acclimatization

B. Tolerance

3. Organisms that produce new organic matter from finished organic matter:

A. Consumers

B. Decomposers

B. Producers

4. Insert the missing words: “The concept of “nature management” and “nature conservation” ....:

A. Identical;

B. Close, but not identical;

5. The set of all types of relationships of organisms with each other is called:

A. Ecomorphs

B. Coactions

B. Cohabitation

6. Exhaustible natural resources:

A. Solar energy;

B. Climate resources;

B. Ferrous metal ores;

7. The biosphere includes:

A. Mantle, hydrosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere.

B. Hydrosphere, atmosphere, stratosphere.

B. Lithosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere.

8. Non-renewable natural resources:

A. Forest resources;

B. Animal resources;

B. Ferrous metal ores;

9. The cosmic role on Earth is performed by:

A. Animals

B. Plants

B. Microorganisms.

10. The part of the earth's crust below the soil layer, extending to depths accessible to geological study, is called:

B. Mining allotment;

B. Lithosphere;

11. The State Land Fund is divided into...:

12. A systematic body of data, including an environmental and economic assessment of an object or resource, is called:

V. Cadastre;

13. The vertical structure of biogeocenosis is presented:

A. Tiering

B. Sinusia

A. E. Haeckel;

B. V. N. Sukachev;

V. V. I. Vernadsky;

15. “Any environmental factor has certain limits to its positive impact on the body.” This is the law...:

A. B. Commoner;

B. Optimum;

V. Yu. Libikha;

16 . The reserve in the Republic of Tatarstan is called:

A. Volzhsko - Kamsky;

B. Lower Kama;

V. Kzyl - Tau;

17. Complete the sentence: “The assimilation capacity of the environment ....”:

A. Is a constant value for all regions;

B. Increases from north to south;

B. Decreases from north to south;

18. The economic optimum point is called:

A. The point at which marginal environmental damage equals marginal environmental cost;

B. The point at which marginal environmental damage exceeds marginal environmental cost;

B. The point at which marginal environmental damage is less than marginal environmental cost;

19. The objects of use and protection under the Federal Law on Wildlife (1995) are:

A. Farm and domestic animals;

B. Wild animals living in captivity;

B. Wild animals living in conditions of natural freedom;

20. Stenothermophile is:

A. An animal with a wide tolerance to heat;

B. An animal with a narrow tolerance to heat;

B. A plant with a narrow tolerance to heat;

21. “Itai-Itai” disease is a chronic poisoning:

A. Cadmium;

B. Strontium;

B. methylmercury;

22. Lower limit of life in soils:

A. About 4 km;

23. According to the Forestry Code of the Russian Federation, the following is free:

A. Wood cutting;

B. Extraction of resin;

B. Incidental forest use;

24. The Water Fund of the Russian Federation does not include:

A. Glaciers;

B. Closed, stagnant bodies of water in areas owned by legal entities and individuals;

V. Swamps;

25. The following activities are permitted on the territory of nature reserves:

A. Recreational;

B. Scientific;

B. Production;

26. Payment for environmental pollution is charged in the Republic of Tatarstan:

A. Quarterly;

B. Annually;

V. “once a year;

27. Select the substances included in the car wash fee:

28. Part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, the most biologically active:

A. Optical;

B. Infrared;

B. Ultraviolet;

29. The set of factors in the inorganic environment that influence the life and distribution of animals and plants is called:

A. Physical factors;

B. Anthropogenic factors;

B. Abiotic factors;

30.The environmental coefficient of water is equal to:

31. Founder of ecology:

A. V. I. Vernadsky;

B. C. Darwin;

V. E. Haeckel;

32. The main reason for the appearance of smog:

A. Emissions from thermal power plants;

B. Emissions from metallurgical enterprises;

B. Vehicle emissions;

33. MPC is:

A. The amount of pollutant that does not have a negative effect on organisms

B. Amount of pollutant leading to chronic diseases

B. Amount of pollutant causing changes in reproductive functions

34. The noise standard in residential premises during the day is no more than:

35. Margarines contain:

A. Trans isomers of fatty acids;

B. Cholesterol;

B. Dioxins;

Option 2

1. Consistent change in time of biogeocenoses in the same place:

A. Succession

B. Fluctuation

B. Dynamics

2. The upper limit of life on Earth:

B. 100 - 150 km.

E. 20-25 km.

3. Tatarstan is located at the junction of 2 natural zones:

A. Forest and forest-steppe

B. Forest and steppe

B. Steppe and forest-steppe.

4. The economic optimum for environmental pollution is the point at which...:

A. The amount of damage is minimal;

B. The value of marginal environmental costs is minimal;

B. The values of marginal damage and marginal environmental costs are equal;

5. Recreational resources are part of the natural and cultural resources that provide...:

B. Industrial production;

B. Agricultural production.

6. The environmental coefficient of air is:

7. The following activities are not permitted in nature reserves:

A. Recreational

B. Forestry

B. Scientific

8. Precipitates are called acidic if their pH is:

A. More than 5

B. Less than 4

B. Equal to 7

9. Ecology studies:

A. Environment

B. Nature

B. The relationship of organisms with the environment.

10. Select the substances included in the payment for surface runoff:

A. Suspended substances, petroleum products, BOD;

B. Petroleum products, suspended solids, carbon monoxide;

B. Suspended substances, petroleum products, tetraethyl lead;

11. Forest use is prohibited without...:

A. Mapping;

B. Monitoring;

B. Forest management;

12. Valuation of a natural resource through lost income that could have been obtained by using this resource for other purposes:

A. Alternative;

B. Market;

B. Costly;

13. High environmental intensity is typical for...:

A. Extensive type of development;

B. Intensive type of development;

14. Euryhalophyte is:

A. Plant with wide tolerance to soil salinity

B An animal with a wide tolerance to salinity

B. A plant with a narrow tolerance to soil salinity

15. Minamata disease is a chronic poisoning:

A. Cadmium

B. Strontium

B. Methylmercury

16. Adaptation of an organism or species to new conditions of existence into which it found itself through artificial relocation:

A. Acclimatization

B. Adaptation

17. Adaptation of the body to the environment by changing the structure of the body:

A. Physiological adaptation

B. Morphological adaptation

B. Behavioral adaptation.

A.. E. Haeckel;

B. V. N. Sukachev;

V.V.I.Vernadsky

19. The national park in the Republic of Tatarstan is called:

A. Lower Kama;

B. Volzhsko-Kama;

V. Kzyl - Tau;

20. A systematic body of data, including an environmental and economic assessment of an object or resource, is called:

A. Cadastre;

21. The ability of the environment to process a certain amount of pollution without harming itself is called:

A. Recreation;

B. Assimilation potential;

B. Land reclamation;

22. Forests of the forest fund of the Russian Federation are divided into:

A. 3 groups;

B. 4 groups;

V. 5 groups;

23. Organisms producing organic substances from inorganic:

A. Consumers;

B. Decomposers;

B. Producers;

24. The relationship in which one organism acts on another with a chemical substance is called:

A. Amensalism;

B. Allelopathy;

B. Commensalism;

25. Response of the environment to negative human impact:

A. Ecological boomerang;

B. Ecological impact;

B. Environmental response;

26. Pumping oil through pipes leads to:

A. Mechanical pollution;

B. Radiation pollution;

B. Chemical pollution;

27. Life forms of organisms depending on environmental factors:

A. Ecomorphs;

B. Coactions;

B. Consortiums;

28. The environment richest in life:

A. Water;

B. Ground-air;

29. Select a non-geome component:

To the air;

30. The use of washing powders leads to the appearance in surface waters of:

A. Phosphates;

B. Nitratov;

V. Sulfatov;

31. Hygienic norm for noise at night in residential premises:

32. The increasing factor in calculating payments for pollution is equal to:

33. Protection of land from pollution includes...:

A. Erosion control;

B. Combating neglectful attitudes;

B. Anti-clogging;

34. Without a mining allotment, development is carried out...:

B. Iron ore;

35. Violation by individual citizens of the rules for the development of subsoil, and the rules for the delivery of mined gold, precious stones and precious metals to the state entails...:

A. Administrative responsibility;

B. Disciplinary responsibility;

B. Criminal liability;

Independent work of students

No.	Subject	The content of the work
	Historical development of ecology. Environmental management as a science.	1. Read the Introduction to the textbook “Ecology” by V.I. Korobkin, L.V. Peredelsky, 2001. 2. Read Chapter 1 of the textbook by A.K. Ryabchikov. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M., 2002. 3. Study lecture material on this topic and answer the following questions: · Subject of environmental management. · Natural resource management facility. · Structure of environmental management as a science. · Connection of environmental management with other sciences.
	Basic concepts and laws of ecology.	1. Read chapters 1, 2 4, 5 of the textbook “Ecology” by Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V., 2001.
	Ecological capabilities of the environment. Natural resources as the most important objects of environmental protection.	1. Read chapter 4 of the textbook by A.K. Ryabchikov. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M., 2002. 2. Read Chapter 3, Section 1 of the textbook by Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaev A.Sh. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M.: Teis, 1997. 3. Read section 4 of the textbook “Nature Management”, edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 4. Read chapter 7 (7.1;7.2) of the textbook “Ecology and Economics of Environmental Management” / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions on p. 198.
	Interaction between society and the natural environment in the production process.	1. Read chapter 1 of section 1 of the textbook by Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaeva A.Sh. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M.: Teis, 1997. 2. Read chapter 12 of the textbook by V.I. Korobkin and L.V. Peredelsky. "Ecology". Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2001. and answer questions - p. 284. 3. Read chapters 2 and 4 of the textbook “Ecology and Economics of Environmental Management” / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. -455 p. and answer the questions on pages 79 and 135.
	Trends in the joint development of natural and man-made systems.	1. Read Chapter 3 of the textbook “Ecology and Economics of Environmental Management”, ed. Girusova E.V., 1998.
	Economic efficiency of environmental protection measures.	1. Read chapter 6 of the textbook by A.K. Ryabchikov. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M., 2002. 2. Read section 8 of the textbook “Nature Management” edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 3. Read Chapter 13 of the textbook “Ecology and Economics of Environmental Management” / edited by. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions on pp. 345-346.
	Planning for rational use of natural resources and environmental protection.	1. Read section 8 of the textbook “Nature Management”, edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 2. Read chapters 5 and 8 of the textbook by A.K. Ryabchikov. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M., 2002. 3. Study the section “Economic mechanism of environmental protection and environmental management” in the Federal Law “On Environmental Protection”, 2001. 4. Read the state report on the state of the environment in the Republic of Tatarstan for 2003, 2004 (section - Activities of the Ecofund of the Republic of Tatarstan."
	Fundamentals of environmental regulation.	1. Read section 5 of the textbook “Nature Management”, edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999. 2. Read chapter 20 of the textbook by Korobkin V.I., Peredelsky L.V. "Ecology". Rostov n/d.: Phoenix, 2001.
	Social aspects of environmental economics.	1. Read Chapter 5 (5.5) of the textbook “Ecology and Economics of Environmental Management” / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions: · Structure of general and social costs and expenses. · Accounting for external and social costs in prices.
	Environmental management and legal protection of the natural environment.	1. Read chapter 10, 14, 15 of the textbook “Ecology and economics of environmental management / ed. Prof. E.V. Girusova.-M.: Law and Law, Unity, 1998. and answer the questions on pp. 272-273, 384, 412. 2. Read sections 8, 9 of the textbook “Nature Management” edited by E. Arustamov .G., M., 1999. 3. Read chapter 13, section 5 of the textbook by Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaev A.Sh. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M.: Teis, 1997. 4. Read chapter 10 of the textbook by A.K. Ryabchikov. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M., 2002.
	Scientific and technological progress and directions for improving environmental management.	1. Read section 7 of the textbook “Nature Management”, edited by Arustamov E.G., M., 1999.
	Regional environmental and economic problems of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tatarstan.	1. Read section 10 of the textbook “Nature Management”, edited by E.G. Arustamov, M., 1999. 2. Read chapter 16, section 6 of the textbook by Bobylev S.N., Khodzhaev A.Sh. “Economics of Environmental Management”, M.: Teis, 1997.

Requirements for completing tests for correspondence students

The test is carried out handwritten in a notebook or using a computer on sheets of A-4 format. Font – Times New Romen No. 14, paragraph indent – 1.25; line spacing – 1.5; page parameters: left -3 cm, right - 1 cm, top and bottom margins - 2 cm. Formulation of references to used literature in the text in square brackets, for example -.

The maximum volume of test work is 15 sheets. A list of references is required.

Payment for emissions of pollutants into the air from mobile sources

Economic mechanism for protecting water from pollution (part 2). Adjustment factors

annotation

Bibliography

We are writing an essay “My Family”!

Coefficient of environmental significance Ecologist coefficient of environmental situation 0 8

Alkenes - nomenclature, preparation, characteristic chemical properties