Search

NEPA Overhaul Aims to Speed Up Environmental Reviews

Posted on 7/27/2020 by Roger Marks and Anthony Cardno, CHMM

Signed into law on January 1, 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies  of the US government to assess the environmental impact of their activities before issuing permits, adopting federal land management actions, or building highways or other publicly owned projects.  

The 1970 law created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which wrote the first regulations to implement NEPA in 1978 (found in 40 CFR 1500--1508). 

What’s New in the Final Rule?

Each update in the NEPA Final Rule fits into one of three categories, more or less:
  • Restructuring rules that re-organize existing environmental regulations to be easier to read, with less repetition and improved grammar.
  • Changes to definitions that clarify the meaning of regulatory terms, add new definitions, and strike outdated ones
  • “Actual new stuff” that substantively changes or adds to facility’s environmental responsibilities under NEPA.
Read on for more insight about what’s in the Final Rule. Read more about NEPA on EPA’s website.

Restructuring Rules in NEPA

The 1978 NEPA regulations were dense, tangled, repetitive, endlessly self-referential, and, simply put, very hard to understand and apply.   

The new Final Rule re-organizes sections of the regulations to provide a more logical “flow,” group connected concepts together, and limit repetition. Plus (grammarians rejoice!) they changed occurrences of passive voice to active voice to make the regulations easier to read.

New and Updated NEPA Definitions  

A set of clear definitions is the backbone of every regulatory program. As EHS professionals know, words often take on different meanings depending on the set of regulations you’re looking at.

To prevent confusion, the meaning of words should be clear and consistent across the full set of rules.
The Final Rule adds and clarifies definitions found in 40 CFR 1508 for a list of terms, among them "Authorization," "Lead Agency." "Participating Agency,"  “Reasonably Foreseeable,” “Significantly,” and many others.  

New and Revised NEPA Requirements

This rule goes beyond regulatory housekeeping to include substantial changes and updates to the requirements for Federal agencies.   

The goal here is to shorten the amount of time it takes to complete legally required environmental reviews before a government project—like new highway construction, for example—can begin.

To that end, the Final Rule:

Sets page and time limits for required environmental reviews, including:
  • Environmental Assessments (EA)
  • Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
  • Conditional exclusions; and
  • Findings of No Significant Impact
Streamlines the way different Federal agencies work with each other on single or related projects.

Adds standards by which “interested parties” like other Federal agencies, state and tribal governments, and private individuals and businesses can offer input during various environmental review processes.

Adds requirements for agencies that rely on third parties or contractors to write/perform environmental reviews like EAs, EISs, etc.  

For more details, read the Final Rule in full in the July 16 Federal Register

Before this month's Final Rule, the NEPA regulations had not changed since 1978. Still, NEPA kept the US legal system busy in the forty-plus years since it became law. The Supreme Court has issued seventeen decisions concerning the law in that time, and US district and appellate courts interpret NEPA more than one hundred times per year, according to the preamble to the Final Rule.  

Earlier efforts to modernize and simplify NEPA include presidential memoranda and extensive guidance.

Tags: environmental compliance, environmental review, NEPA, permits

Find a Post

Compliance Archives

Lion - Quotes

The instructor had knowledge of regulations and understanding of real-world situations. The presentation style was engaging and fostered a positive atmosphere for information sharing.

Linda Arlen

Safety & Environmental Compliance Officer

The instructor made the class very enjoyable and catered to the needs of our group.

Sarah Baker

Planner

I was able to present my scenario to the instructor and worked thru the regulations together. In the past, I attended another training firm's classes. Now, I have no intention of leaving Lion!

Diana Joyner

Senior Environmental Engineer

Lion does a great job summarizing and communicating complicated EH&S-related regulations.

Michele Irmen

Sr. Environmental Engineer

Course instructor was better prepared and presented better than other trainers. Course manual and references were easier to use as well.

Marty Brownfield

Hazardous Waste Professional

Excellent class, super instructor, very easy to follow. No rushing through material. Would like to take his class again.

Lawrence Patterson

EH&S Facility Maintenance & Security Manager

The instructor was very knowledgeable and provided pertinent information above and beyond the questions that were asked.

Johnny Barton

Logistics Coordinator

The instructor was very patient and engaging - willing to answer and help explain subject matter.

Misty Filipp

Material Control Superintendent

I think LION does an excellent job of any training they do. Materials provided are very useful to my day-to-day work activities.

Pamela Embody

EHS Specialist

Attending Lion Technology classes should be mandatory for every facility that ships or stores hazmat.

Genell Drake

Outbound Lead

Download Our Latest Whitepaper

The definitive 10-step guide for new hazardous materials shipping managers. Quickly reference the major considerations and details that impact hazmat shipping compliance.

Latest Whitepaper

By submitting your phone number, you agree to receive recurring marketing and training text messages. Consent to receive text messages is not required for any purchases. Text STOP at any time to cancel. Message and data rates may apply. View our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.