TJ01-093@顺发煤矿建设项目地表水环境影响评价报告
收藏
资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：(预览前20页/共54页)
编号：522505
类型：共享资源
大小：1.74MB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2015-11-17
上传人：QQ28****1120
认证信息
个人认证
孙**（实名认证）
辽宁
IP属地：辽宁
12
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
毕业设计
- 资源描述：
-
TJ01-093@顺发煤矿建设项目地表水环境影响评价报告,毕业设计
- 内容简介：
-
附录（一）附件1：外文资料翻译译文环境影响评价过程中的监测和审核摘要：本文首先介绍了什么是环境影响监测和审核，环境影响监测和审核在环境影响评价过程中的重要性和必要性，但是监测和审核却是各国实施环境影响评价过程的最薄弱环节。环境影响评价制度还存在很多不足，在它的整个过程中很多步骤都存在着许多问题，从基础研究到监测的必要条件都是如此。在世界范围内监测和审核被认为是环境影响评价过程中最薄弱的环节。除此之外，环境影响评价中的监测与环境管理的各个方面都有很大的重叠，因此为了避免和减小环境影响评价中监测和审核的必要条件与环境管理的重复，还需要建立一些类型的机制。关键词：环境影响评价 监测 审核1、介绍为了把人类发展过程中对环境造成的影响减小到最低限度，环境影响评价制度在全球得到了广泛的应用，同时它也被作为了环境计划和管理的一种手段。环境影响评价制度的重点在于防范于未然，因此也被作为防范原则的一个典范。施行环境保护和环境管理是环境影响评价制度的首要目标。从二十世纪初期环境影响评价被实施以来，虽然它在不同国家的应用实践过程中有很大的差别，但是它的作用却表现地越来越重要，应用范围也越来越广泛。当然，该项制度在学术界的广泛范围内仍然存在着一些未确定或是未解决的问题。最近几年里，检测环境影响评价有效性的趋势越演越烈。Sadler认为衡量环境影响评价有效性的全部参数至少包括六个方面的内容，环境影响监测和审核就是其中一个方面的内容。关于环境影响监测和审核在环境影响评价过程中的重要性和必要性在学术界得到了广泛反复地强调。美国国家研究委员会特殊委员会于1986年认定把监测作为能够大大提高环境影响评价质量的必要行为。按照McCallum的观点认为没有环境影响监测和审核指导的环境影响评价过程是不完备的，也不会被社会所认可。尽管环境影响监测和审核是环境影响评价过程的两个重要的组成部分，然而从全球范围来看它们在环境影响评价过程中的贯彻实施却没能得到足够的重视。Carpenter认为环境影响评价过程中有关监测和审核的问题将变得越来越突出。2000年影响评价国际协会年度会议在香港举行，这次会议的焦点主要集中在环境影响评价过程中监测和审核的各种问题，并且为其在实践中更好地应用提出了长远的指导。环境影响的预测和识别被认为是环境影响评价过程中最重要的组成部分，但是由于它仅仅依靠计划的制定而忽略了项目建成后的后续行为，结果，环境影响评价制度没能取得连续的进步也没能实现它的潜在性效益的最大值。而且，建立在决定分析之上的环境影响评价在执行过程中的重点与它所追求的目标还有很大的差距，例如环境保护。通过对国际环境影响评价实施有效性的专门研究，Sadler发现在保持环境影响评价的持续性方面还很欠缺。这被认为是环境影响评价制度在全球范围内存在的最严重的缺陷。在澳大利亚，各州政府关于环境问题所达成的协议为环境影响评价制度的实施拟定了一个时间表，意识并承认国家参与到环境影响评价各方面的重要性，并且也认可环境影响评价在环境监测和管理后续发展中的重要作用。该协议的形成是以环境影响评价在澳大利亚成为一种最重要和有用的环境管理工具为基础的。然而在澳大利亚的环境影响评价系统中，监测和审核仍处在最薄弱的地位。这就要求政策制定者和环评工作者对此问题能够产生足够的重视。正如Harvey描述的那样，在澳大利亚环境影响评价在很多情况下的权限仅仅是被作为一种制定计划的工具而不是被作为环境管理的手段。因此，环境影响评价过程中监测和审核程序在大多数情况下并没有被严格地执行，相反，人们总是倾向于使计划符合工程项目的需要。尽管澳大利亚是世界上环境影响评价制度最为完善的国家之一，但是对环境影响持续评价方面研究的指导却是非常少的。在澳大利亚南部地区，环境影响评价制度实际上是在已废止且被发展法案所替代的计划编制法案的指导下进行的。许多发展提议同意在计划编制法案的核准下被建立。建立潜在监测制度的足够时间因此而被白白浪费。因而，有必要对在这个法案指导下的澳大利亚南部地区环境影响评价中的监测和审核制度在实施中发挥的作用进行调查。目前，关于这方面的研究还没有得到广泛地开展，本文试图考虑如何将环境影响监测过程合并到要求进行在1982计划法案指导下的环境影响评价的澳大利亚南部发展项目中来，并建立所需的符合联邦和国家法律规定的远期研究机制。这对于增加澳大利亚环境影响评价状况的认识将起到很大推动作用，并且有利于其进一步被推广。2、环境影响评价中的监测和审核环境影响评价过程包含了一系列相互联系得步骤，其中包括：选择性考虑、行为设计、筛选、环境影响评价报告书的编制、报告书的回顾和评价、得出结论、得出结论后的活动（如监测和审核）。按照Bird和Therivel的研究得出环境影响监测是环评过程的必要组成部分，它也是环境管理的一部分。Glass声称环境影响评价是一个循环的过程，在其各种组成部分中应包括反馈和互动的环节。因为环境影响评价的目标就是确保获得贯穿一切发展行为整个生命周期能够被了解并且可行的结果。环境影响评价必须制定一些检查项目周期的设计、执行、操作和退役各个阶段的机制。它自身就是对项目涉及的一种检查。监测和审核的执行是建立未来对工程周期后阶段核查的唯一可行的机制。因此，监测和审核在环境影响评价过程的决定后阶段发挥着重要的作用，事实上要是不执行它们，环境影响评价可能失去它的可信性。不然，除非能够找到一些方法来检测这些预测并且决定是否需要采取一些缓解措施，不然花在基础研究和预测上的金钱、时间和精力都是徒劳的。环境影响评价中的监测和审核被以各种方式定义过，并被一些著名的作者称为“环境影响评价的继续行为”和“发展后审核”。在各种文献中关于环境影响评价的定义很多，但是对于后行为的发展，例如监测和审核的关注却是寥寥无几。在Berkes给出的定义中清楚地指出了这些程序，即环境影响评价等同于影响预测，基础状况变化的预测可以通过监测的结果来论证。关于监测和审核的早期定义是由Bisset和Tomlinson两个人来确定的。他们尤其设计了发展行为对环境的实际影响和关于预测的准确论证。然而，在进入当代的大部分时期里，这种观点已经发生了变化，监测和审核覆盖的内容也越来越广泛。而且，不同的作者对环境影响评价过程的监测和审核都提出了不同的模型。依照Wood etal的观点，环境影响评价审核指的是环境影响评价系统中的各方面执行情况的检查，同时后审核指的是按照EIS进行的预测的准确性的调查、设计、综合监测及审核在环境影响评价过程的初期阶段变得更加重要。继续是加拿大的一个术语，它包括环境影响评价过程完成后的所有行为。环境影响评价的继续的概念是指寻求在环评过程后的决定时期建立一个反馈机制。Sadler使用自后评价来描述环境影响评价过程的所有有效性。对环境影响评价过程的监测和审核在验证缓解行为的有效性，对调整标准的依从及影响预测的准确性时的必要性得到了广泛地接受。尽管对它的有效性没有疑义，按照Wood的观点，我们知道环境影响评价制度在实践中还有许多有待改进之处。除了一些重要的程序在世界上的一些国家的环境影响评价中被省去外，环评过程本身也常常被认为太死板了，没有制定真正的反馈机制。环境影响评价的继续在实践中的执行并不是一件简单的事情，它还伴随着与开始机制和职责相关的重要问题的出现。另一个需要考虑的问题是环境监测和审核活动的开展总是脱离了环境影响评价的过程。污染控制、废物管理、土地使用计划、自然资源管理以及发展计划和政策制定的其他方面，全都涉及了各种形式的监测行为。环境影响评价中的监测与环境管理的其它各个方面都有很大的重叠，因此为了避免和减小环境影响评价中监测和审核的必要条件与环境管理其它方面的重复建立一些类型的机制是很有必要的。监测和审核涉及了环评过程中的很多不同的利益群体，他们每个人都为了不同的利益，承担着不同的职责。因此，包括投资者、开发者、经营者、国家政府官员、公众、规划机构、估算机构、环保机构等在内的各种不同团体的适当协调对于保证环境影响评价过程实施的有效性是很重要的。同时，制定适当的制度和法律规划在这方面也是很重要的。许多术语使得监测和审核看起来像是很复杂的过程，而且这些术语中的大部分都是互相交叠的。Sheperd把环境影响评价中的监测和审核行为看作影响评价和监测的后续工程，并且把这项工程分为七个组成部分。Tomlinson和Atkinson把一个典型的环境影响评价过程中各个时期的检测分成了七种类型。其中的三种类型与发展后阶段相关，另外的四种是在环境影响评价过程中所采用的，前者对于后者来说是必不可少的。事实上，在实际操作中不可能把所有类型的监测和审核在一项特定工程中一次就使之结成一个整体。工程的类型以及它产生地潜在的重要社会、经济、环境影响将决定该工程的环境影响评价过程中所需进行的监测和审核的种类。此外，为了满足环境影响评价的基本要求，在监测和审核之后还需要一个优先的程序。因而，Wilson认为审核缓解活动实施的有效性将是首要的优先程序。当然，我们必须紧记在使环境影响评价更有效和更有意义的过程中，不应该为此过程增加任何不必要的复杂性。因此，为了设计出有效的不复杂的机制而对环评过程中的监测和审核的执行情况的运行机制进行调查是非常重要的，这样能够确保影响预测，影响管理及监测计划之间的综合。3、环境影响评价的有效性。监测和审核在使环境影响评价成为一种有效的环境管理手段中起到了不可或缺的作用。Bird和Therivel认为环境影响监测和影响审核时两个不可缺少的环节，在评定环境影响评价在实现环境保护方面的效力时必须执行监测和审核。Morrison-Saunders声称，评定环境影响评价的效力就是评定它实现的环境保护和管理目标所达到的程度。Gibson把监测的结果看作是评定环境影响评价过程的基本原则。Sadller把自己对国际环境影响评价有效性研究的重点放在了环评的继续研究上，将其作为一个主要课题，并且把环境影响评价的继续看成是提高环评效力的一个重要组成部分。实际上，如果在环境影响评价过程中没有实施监测和审核就是没有反馈信息的机会，没有反馈的环境影响评价制度仅仅是一个动态的线性过程，这个过程没有任何机制使其在未来有所提高。真实有效的环境影响评价，必需实现使所有特定工程环境管理更加完善的目标。而且，环境影响评价也有机会在一个国家范围水平上更有效，只要通过为拟建项目提供信息的方法就能实现。在对1994年澳大利亚联邦所完成的环境影响评价的回顾中，我们发现在澳大利亚利用包括环境影响声明中的多数信息的很少。Buckley也对在澳大利亚存在的缺少用一种系统方法比较信息的努力做了评论，该系统应该能被作为一个基础成为未来的参考。如果这种信息在过去的环境影响声明中有所涉及，提供了一些反馈，就会为以后的环境影响评价准确节省大量的时间、金钱和精力，不过实际上并没有，所以很遗憾。4、监测和审核：环境影响评价过程中最薄弱的环节。环境影响评价制度还存在很多不足，在它的整个过程中很多步骤都存在着许多问题，从基础研究到监测的必要条件都是如此。在世界范围内监测和审核被认为是环境影响评价过程中最薄弱的环节。Sadler在他的关于国际环境影响评价有效性的研究中回顾了所有施行环境影响评价制度的国家和地区的环境影响评价中的监测及审核的执行情况，发现环境影响评价中的后续程序的执行效果非常不好。Wood对包括美国、英国、荷兰、加拿大、澳大利亚、新西兰、南非等国家在内的发达国家的七种环境影响评价里的监测和审核进行了研究，他发现在这些国家里没有一个国家的监测和审核能够完全符合他所规定的评价标准。环境监测和审核的不完善被认为是环境影响评价制度在全球实施时所普遍具有的最主要的缺陷。这个缺陷在许多著作中都曾被作者提到过。Dipper的一个研究显示，在环境影响评价的实际操作过程中后审核行为的应用并不广泛，并得出了还有很大余地完善后审核活动的结论。Barker和Wood公布了对八个欧洲国家后审核活动研究的结果，发现只有希腊一个国家为加强环境影响评价后续程序而采取了措施。Briffett在对亚洲十五个施行环境影响评价制度的国家和地区研究中发现只有香港、印度尼西亚、韩国和菲律宾这四个国家和地区对环境影响评价中进行监测和审核作了强制性规定。目前，有许多关于环境影响审核的研究，以确定环境影响评价过程中所有影响预测的可行性。在环境影响评价中与监测和审核有关的问题与人们对该过程的一些观点的相似性，在学术界引起了广泛的讨论。一些著名的早期研究成果，包括澳大利亚的Buckley、美国的Culhane 以及英国的 Bisset等人的研究成果中都认为环境影响评价最薄弱的环节是影响预测。Wood 在对英国的28项工程研究中显示只有56%预测是可审核的，在这些可审核的预测中还有21%的预测是不准确的 。该研究称有六种未曾预料到的影响和可以查找的原因，包括资料数据的缺乏，预测的含糊和时间的相互依赖，都导致了预测的不可审核。Buckley指出在澳大利亚进行的许多环境影响评价对于预测仅仅是一些描述性的言语，同时在环境影响评价过程中也还存在着大量的问题，经研究发现有28%的可审核的预测是完全不正确的。Bailey et al发现澳大利亚西部的七条人工排水渠工程的建设中有22%的可审核预测是不正确的，并且由于缺少监测数据而限制了对影响的审核。在另一项对澳大利亚西部所做的研究中，Morrison-Saunders发现29%的错误预测中有14%的实际影响根本没有进行预测。在Read所作的唯一一个对澳大利亚南部地区的后审核所做的研究中，出现了不一样的结果。该项研究表明在对矿山的环境影响评价中对动物区系得预测是完全准确而有效的。文献出处：1 A.K.M. Rafique Ahammed. Environmental Impact Monitoring and Auditing in the EIA Process. Environ Impact Assess Rev.2006,26;426432附件2：外文原文Environmental Impact Monitoring and Auditing in the EIA ProcessAbstract: This article first introduced any is the environmental impact monitoring and auditing, the environmental impact monitoring and auditing in the environmental impact assessment process the importance and the necessity, but the monitoring and the auditing actually is the various countries implementation environmental impact assessment process most weak link. The environmental impact assessment system also has very many insufficiencies, very many steps all has many problems in its entire process, from the basic research to the monitor essential condition all is so. In the world scope the monitoring and the auditing was considered is in the environmental impact assessment process the weakest link. In addition, in the environmental impact assessment monitoring and environment management each aspect all has very big overlapping, therefore in order to avoid and reduces in the environmental impact assessment the monitoring and the auditing essential condition and the environment management repetition, but also needs to establish some types the mechanism.Key word: Environmental Impact Assessment; Monitoring; Auditing1、IntroductionEnvironmental impact assessment (EIA) is being used globally, either as a planning or management tool, in order to minimize the harmful consequences of development. Its emphasis is on prevention and it is hence an example of the precautionary principle. Ensuring environmental protection and management is the primary goal of EIA. Since its introduction in the early 1970s, the role and scope of EIA are expanding continuously, although its application, practice and procedures vary from country to country. There are still some uncertainties and issues in EIA that are being discussed in a wide range of literature. In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in examining the effectiveness of EIA. Sadler identified at least six areas for the overall evaluation of the effectiveness of EIA, defect monitoring and impact auditing being one of them.The importance and benefits of monitoring and auditing in the EIA process has been repeatedly highlighted in a wide range of literature. In 1986, a special committee of the National Research Council of the USA identified monitoring as the “single action that could most improve impact assessment”. According to McCallum, EIA cannot be expected to endure in society without the introduction of impact monitoring. Although monitoring and auditing are two important components of the EIA process, their implementation in the EIA process is being neglected globally. However, Carpenter notes that the issue of monitoring and auditing in EIA is becoming more prominent. The annual conference of the International association for Impact Assessment held in Hong Kong in 2000 specially focused on various issues of monitoring and auditing in EIA and suggested future directions for good practice.EIA is reported to be mostly concerned with the prediction and identification of impacts at a pre-decision level focusing only on the steps before and up to the planning decision but ignoring post development follow-up activities, such as monitoring and auditing. As a result, EIA is failing to maximize its potential for continuous improvement. Moreover, it would seem that the procedural emphasis of EIA upon the pre-decision analysis keeps it distant from its goal, i.e., environmental protection. In a major study on international EIA effectiveness by Sadler, it was found that there was a lack or poor performance of follow-up activities in EIA. This is considered to be a major weakness of EIA globally. In Australia, the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment set out a schedule for EIA, recognizing and acknowledging the need for national participation in all facets of EIA and accepting the role of EIA in post- development environmental monitoring and management. This agreement forms a basis for EIA to become one of the most important and useful tools for environmental management in Australia. However, in the Australian EIA system, monitoring and auditing remain the weakest areas, requiring the attention of policy makers and EIA practitioners. As noted by Harvey in most of the EIA jurisdictions in Australia, EIA is being used as a planning tool rather than an environment management tool. Therefore, monitoring and auditing programmes are not strictly considered within most of the EIA processes in Australia; alternatively, they tend to be requirements of the planning approval of the project. Although Australia is one of the major EIA jurisdictions of the world, very little research has so far been conducted on EIA follow- up in Australia.In South Australia, EIA was formally introduced under the provisions of the Planning Act 1982 which was repealed and replaced by the Development Act 1993. Many of the development proposals approved under the SA Planning Act 1982 have subsequently been built, and sufficient time has lapsed for monitoring regimes to potentially be established. Therefore, there is a need to investigate the role of monitoring and auditing in the South Australian EIA process under this Act. No such study has yet been conducted. This article attempts to look at how the environmental impact monitoring process was incorporated within South Australian development projects that required an EIA under the Planning Act 1982, and establishes the need for further research under the new legislative provisions at both federal and state levels. Thus contribution to increased understanding of the Australian situation will be significant for much wider application.2. Monitoring and auditing in EIA The EIA process passes through a series of iterative steps including; consideration of alternatives, action design, screening, scoping, preparation of the EIA report, reviewing or evaluating the report, decision making, and post decision activities such as monitoring and auditing. According to Bird and Therivel, environmental impact monitoring is an essential part of the EIA process, which forms part of its management component. Glasson et al. state that EIA should be a cyclical activity, with feedback and interaction between the various steps. Because the aim of EIA is to ensure that the consequences of any development action throughout its entire life cycle are understood and are acceptable, EIA should have some mechanism for checks on the design, implementation, operation and decommissioning stages of the project cycle. EIA itself is a check on the project design. The implementation of monitoring and auditing is the only, mechanism available to establish further checks on the later stages of the project cycle. Thus, monitoring and auditing can play a significant role in the post- decision stage of the EIA process and, in fact, without their implementation EIA may lose its credibility. Money, time and effort spent on the baseline studies and predictions are all effectively rendered useless unless there is some way of testing these predictions and determining whether mitigation methods will have to be applied. Monitoring and auditing in EIA have been defined in many ways and are referred to as follow- up action and post- development audit by some prominent authors. Definitions of EIA abound in the literature but rarely do they make any mention of post-development activities such as monitoring and auditing. The definition given by Berkes clearly refers to these activities: Environmental impact assessment is equivalent to impact prediction; prediction of changes from the baseline conditions as demonstrated by the results of monitoring. Early definitions of monitoring and auditing are provided by Bisset and Tomlinson. They specifically relate to the identification of actual impacts of the development action on the environment, and the verification of the accurateness of the predictions. The coverage of monitoring and auditing has become much broader. Moreover, different authors have proposed different types of monitoring and auditing in the EIA process. According to Wood et al., EIA auditing refers to the examination of the performance of various aspects auditing of the EIA system whilst the term post- auditing refers to the investigation of the accuracy of predictions made in the EIS. Designing investigation monitoring and auditing in the early stages of the EIA process are becoming more important. The concept of EIA follow up seeks to establish a feed back mechanism in the EIA process after decision- making. Sadler used the term ex-post evaluation to review the overall effectiveness of the EIA process. It is widely accepted that monitoring and auditing in the EIA process are essential to verify the performance of the mitigation activities, compliance with regulatory standards, and the accuracy of impact predictions. Despite its undisputed usefulness, according to Wood, EIA practice often leaves much to be desired. Apart from the fact that many important steps are often left out of EIA procedures in many jurisdictions around the world, it is also often thought that the process itself is too linear, with no real provisions for feed- back. The implementation of EIA follow- up in practice is not a simple matter, with the major issues relating to the initiation mechanism and responsibility. Another issue to consider is that environmental monitoring and auditing activities are also undertaken outside the EIA process. Pollution control, waste management, land use planning, natural resource management and other aspects of development planning and policy- making all involve various forms of monitoring of EIA and all other aspects of environmental management and it is therefore necessary to establish some sort of mechanism that can avoid or reduce the overlap between the monitoring and auditing requirement in EIA and other aspects of environmental management. Monitoring and auditing involve many stakeholders in the EIA process, each with different interests and responsibilities. Therefore, proper coordination between the parties including investors, developers, operators, NGOs, the public, the planning authority, assessing authority and environmental agency is important for effective implementation. An appropriate institutional and legal arrangement is also important in this regard. Many terminologies can make monitoring and auditing seem somewhat complex phenomena. Moreover, most of the terms overlap considerably. Sheperd termed the monitoring and auditing activities in EIA as post-project impact assessment and monitoring and suggests seven components for this. Tomlinson and Atkinson define seven types of auditing for various stages in a typical EIA process. Three of these relate to the post- development stage whilst others are applicable during are interlinked with each other, the former being essential for the latter. In actual fact, it is not practically possible to integrate all types of monitoring and auditing in the EIA process of a particular project at one time. The type of project and its potential for producing significant social, economic and environmental impacts will determine what type of monitoring and auditing programmes are needed in the EIA process of that particular project. Again, there is a need to priorities actions under the monitoring and auditing programme in order to fulfill the basic need of EIA. Hence, Wilson argues that auditing the performance of mitigation commitments could be the first priority. It is necessary however to keep in mind to make EIA more effective and meaningful without promoting any unnecessary complexity. Therefore, it is important to look into the existing mechanism of the implementation of monitoring and auditing in EIA in order to work out an effective and uncomplicated mechanism, which can ensure integration between impact predictions, impact management and monitoring schemes.3. Environmental impact assessment effectiveness Monitoring and auditing play a vital role in making EIA an effective environmental management tool. According to Bird and Therivel environmental impact monitoring and impact auditing are two vital activities, which must be performed in order to assess an EIAs effectiveness at achieving environmental protection. Morrison Saunders argues that the effectiveness of EIA is the extent to which it achieves its goals for environmental protection and management. Gibson considers monitoring of effects as one of the basic principles for evaluating the EIA process. Sadler focused on follow up as one the major themes in his international EIA effectiveness study and identified follow- up activities as one of the major priorities for improving EIA effectiveness. In fact, without monitoring and without feedback EIA is a static and linear process that does not have any mechanism for the improvement in the future. To be truly effective EIA has to achieve goals for better environmental management of any particular project; however, EIA has the chance to be effective on a nation-wide level by contributing information to future projects. The review of Commonwealth( of Australia) Environmental Impact Assessment in 1994 found that very little was done to utilize the information contained in the multitude of Environmental Impact Statements( EIS) around Australia. Buckley also remarked on the lack of effort in Australia to collate information in a systematic way to be used as a base for future reference. This is indeed unfortunate as a great deal of time, money and effort would be saved on future EIA preparation if the information contained in past EISs provided some feed-back. Future projects and activities could then be compared against similar developments carried out in the past which were subject to similar variables.4、Monitoring and auditing: the weakest areas in the EIA process EIA is far from perfect; there are problems in many of the procedural steps from baseline studies through to monitoring requirements. It is widely believed that monitoring and auditing are the weakest areas in the EIA process globally. Sadler reviewed the implementation of monitoring and auditing in various EIA jurisdictions in his international study of the effectiveness of environmental assessment and found that there was a lack or poor performance of follow-up activities in EIA. Wood evaluated the status of monitoring and auditing in seven EIA jurisdictions of the developed world including the United States, UK, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand South Africa, and he found none of them to fully meet his evaluation criteria. This is considered as a major weakness of EIA globall
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号