NRC addresses NEPA proposed rule in public meeting

Changes that Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have labeled as significant could be coming to the agency's environmental review regulations if its proposed rule on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures moves forward.

With notable changes potentially incoming-such as no longer requiring draft environmental impact statements and the addition of new categorical exclusions-NRC staff shared additional details on these and other proposals during a July 23 meeting on the NEPA proposed rule.

The meeting followed a similar structure to other recent virtual public gatherings on proposed rules, with NRC staff presenting on the proposed rulemaking, sharing additional details, and taking questions from the public.

Further context: The proposed changes-primarily to the environmental review regulations found under 10 CFR Part 51-are a culmination of past, present, and incoming efforts to modernize and streamline how the NRC addresses NEPA. The implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of 2023 NEPA amendments, decisions made by the three branches of government, rulemakings and NRC decisions, and internal efficiency efforts were the four specifically listed in the NRC's presentation.

The proposed changes are intended to accomplish the following:

• Narrow the scope to only areas where the NRC has statutory authority in environmental review matters.
• Expand categorical exclusions.
• Align with the 2023 NEPA amendments in hopes of reducing unnecessary burdens for applicants.
• Consolidate guidance under one environmental guidance document.

To narrow the scope on the reviews under the proposed rule, the term "effects" will be redefined to align with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, recent case law, and executive order direction. This would limit NEPA analysis to environmental effects the NRC has statutory authority to regulate or mitigate. As has been previously reported, one example would be issuing construction permit decisions without considering nonradiological issues like dust, noise, and nonradiological water.

The changes to regulations regarding the level of review, meanwhile, would "provide a more flexible approach that reflects the current framework for implementing NEPA while continuing to ensure that actions with the potential for significant environmental impacts receive the appropriate level of review," said Kimyata Savoy, NRC chief environmental review and permitting officer.

Part 51 changes would include four enhancements to the categorical exclusion framework. Not only would it include the addition of new exclusions-some of which have already been described-but the framework would create a pathway to add categorical exclusions used by other federal agencies, a process to establish new exclusions on the NRC website, and a pathway for interested parties to propose new exclusions.

The proposed rulemaking would include the introduction of a new environmental guidance document based on guidance the CEQ gave in 2025 that would help standardize NRC reviews. According to NRC staff, this would be the first time the agency has developed a technology-neutral environmental guidance document.

Public comments discussion: The proposed rule also eliminates the requirement for the NRC to issue a draft EIS ahead of a final version. Because draft EISs are available to the public, the documents have typically provided an early opportunity for public input.

Multiple people at the July 23 meeting raised questions over how these proposed changes would impact the public's ability to give input on environmental reviews. One speaker, representing the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said it would be more difficult for the public to comment: "There's a lot of ways that you're chipping away at places where we've had an opportunity to get a review."

Savoy disagreed with the belief expressed by some that the rulemaking was meant to stifle public comment. The public will still be able to provide comments during environmental reviews, such as during the initial scoping process, she said. The public also can still comment on the notice of intent issued by NRC staff when preparing an EIS.

"The rule takes into consideration a number of different legislative changes, judicial direction, and executive orders. That's why we're making the changes, but it definitely wasn't specifically to limit public interaction, not at all," Savoy said.