Against the background of ongoing reform of preferential regimes in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation (AZRF) and the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD), there is a growing need for institutional solutions that can simultaneously reduce the environmental risks associated with technogenic deposits (anthropogenic mineral accumulations, including secondary mineral resources contained in mine tailings) and maintain the investment attractiveness of projects for their development. The aim of this study is to develop a universal approach to regulating projects for processing technogenic deposits in the AZRF and FEFD macroregions that balances the standardization and differentiation of support measures while accounting for regional differences in the structure of the technogenic legacy and risk profiles. The theoretical framework combines the institutional approach, the concept of government and market failures in environmental regulation, the theory of complementary macroregional development, and the concept of economic incentive instruments. The methodological toolkit includes content analysis and comparison of the regulatory framework governing preferential regimes in the AZRF and FEFD, comparative analysis of the regional distribution of technogenic deposits and the regimes operating in those regions, synthesis of the findings and development of a model for harmonizing the regimes as applied to technogenic deposit development projects, testing of the model using hypothetical examples, and verification by comparison with existing instruments for stimulating the processing of technogenic resources and with the results of previous studies. The study uses statistical data from Rosstat and Rosnedra, as well as information from open scientific and government sources aggregated for the AZRF and FEFD regions. A two-component assessment system is proposed, based on the intersection of an index of project economic feasibility and an integral index of the priority of involving technogenic deposits in order to reduce environmental risk. The resulting matrix makes it possible to rank projects by implementation priority and by the level of government support required. The scientific novelty lies in integrating the structure of the technogenic legacy, environmental risks, and preferential-policy parameters within a single risk-oriented analytical framework; the practical significance lies in the possibility of using this framework to configure a unified preferential regime for the AZRF and FEFD.