Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T05:35:17.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Determining If and When Impacts of Potential Accidents Need to be Evaluated in a NEPA Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Charles H. Eccleston
Get access

Extract

Determining if and when a potential accident scenario is subject to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 has long been an open question. This issue is routinely addressed by some agencies, yet is virtually ignored by others. Certainly, not all federal proposals merit a detailed analysis of accident scenarios. Yet, how does one determine under which circumstances an analysis of accident scenarios should be subject to a NEPA analysis versus those that are not? The implications of this issue are particularly important with respect to low-probability high-consequence events. Beyond the obvious risk of increased exposure to litigation, this question is of interest for other reasons, not the least of which being that such an analysis can substantially increase schedules and cost. This paper examines this question and provides a tool consisting of seven tests for assisting practitioners in reaching a determination.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 89 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Yost, N. C., 1987, “Administrative Implementation of and Judicial Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act,” in Law of Environmental Protection, S. Novick, ed.Google Scholar

2. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Public Law 91–190, 42 U.S.C 4321–4347, 01 1, 1970.Google Scholar

3. U.S. Department of Energy, “National Environmental Policy Act: Lessons Learned,” Issue No. 16, 09 1, 1998, p. 3.Google Scholar

4. U.S. Department of Energy, “National Environmental Policy Act: Lessons Learned,” Issue No. 12, 09 2, 1997, p. 7.Google Scholar

5. March, F., personal communication, 1999, former chairman of the National Association of Environmental Professional's NEPA Working Group, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar

6. 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.22, “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,” Code of Federal Regulations, 11 29, 1978.Google Scholar

7. 40 CFR 1502.3.

8. Sierra Club v. Watkins, 808 F. Supp. p. 852 (1991).Google Scholar

9. Florida Coalition v. Bush (U.S.D.C. 1989).Google Scholar

10. Fogleman, V. M., 1990, Guide to National Environmental Policy Act, Section 3.5.Google Scholar

11. March, F., 1996, “Determining the Significance of Proposed Actions,” National Association of Environmental Professionals 21st Annual Conference Proceedings, NEPA symposium, Session TC3, p421Google Scholar; March, F., 1998, “NEPA Effectiveness: Mastering the Process,” Section 3.3.7, Government Institutes, Rockville, Maryland, 1998Google Scholar; and Eccleston, C. H., 1999, “The NEPA Planning Process: A Comprehensive Guide with Emphasis on Efficiency,” Chapter 8, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, 396 pp.Google Scholar

12. Asian Development Bank—Office of the Environment, 1991, “Environmental Risk Assessment: Dealing with Uncertainty in Environmental Impact Assessment,” Environmental Paper No. 7, Figures 1.1 and 1.5, 07 1991.Google Scholar

13. U.S. Department of Energy, Order 5481.1B.

14. U.S. Department of Defense, MIL-STD-882B.