A strategy for integrating NEPA with EMS and ISO 14000

A Strategy for Integrating NEPA with EMS and IS0 14000

Charles H. Eccleston

It is vital that federal managers consider new approaches for enhancing environmental protection while reducing redundancies and cost. Faced with increasing environmental issues, compliance requirements, competing resources, and tightened budget constraints, agencies must seek innovative approaches for doing more with less. The diverse array of confusing and sometimes inappropriate or conflicting regulatory requirements compounds compliance complexities and increases the need to seek resourceful solutions.

At a time when NEPA is coming under closer congressional scrutiny, an integrated NEPNEMS paradigm provides a key for increasing the effectiveness and uniformity of imp1ementingNEPAat the early planning stage, while reducing cost, delays, and redundancies. Effectively integrated, NEPA satisfies one of the five, and perhaps most important, principles of an EMS-environmental planning. NEPH's regulatory requirements not only are consistent with the objective of an EMS, but actually enhance the effectiveness of an EMS. An integrated approach provides the added benefit of increased environmental coordination and heightened communications that trans- lates into further cost reduction and fewer delays. The strategy described in this article is designed to balance the rigors of an international standard with the need to efficiently implement an integrated NEPNEMS system, given a diverse set of challenging circumstances and constraints.

Defore exploring a new approach to environmental management, let us first stop and ask what processionary caterpillars may have in common with federal planning and environmental compliance. As some of you may already know, processionary caterpillars worm their way through tree branches, with their heads fit- ted snugly against the rear extremity of their predecessor, so as to form a long winding procession. Hence the aptly de- served designation-processionary caterpillars.

Intrigued by this behavior, the natural- ist Jean-Henri Fabre lured a colony of these creatures onto the rim of a pot. In due time, the caterpillars began to snuggle up to one another, eventually forming an intercon-

nected chain that started moving around in a large circle. Having no beginning or end, Fabre expected that the caterpillars would soon tire of this unceasing parade and head off in a new direction. Such was not the case, Fascinated, Fabre placed a supply of food next to the processing circle, but to no avail. The food supply was outside the domain of their circle. To his dismay, the caterpillars continued on. Propelled by sheer force of habit, the living circle kept edging on in an unceasing circle for six days and nights. Finally, exhaustion and starvation did them in. They were unable to break convention and venture beyond their established paradigm.

Today, federal agencies increasingly are being asked to do more with less. Effi-

CCC 1088-1 91 3/98/070309-09 8 1998 John Wiley & Sons. Inc ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 9

~

Yet, NFPXs effectiveness as a

planning tool often is diminished

because it either has not been properly

applied or integrated into agency

planning.

ciency is vital to the success of achieving an agency’s organic mission. So as not to go the way of the processionary caterpillars, agencies must be open to new and more effective paradigms for achieving environmental compliance. The following discussion advances such a strategy.

THE DILEMMA In 1969, the U.S. Congress established

the first policy enacted by a nation for protecting and safeguarding the environment. While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 19691establishes a national policy for protecting the environment, and requires agencies to comply with certain action-forcing mechanisms such as prepa- ration of Environmental Impact State- ments, the Act generally lacks a substantive mandate that requires agencies to make decisions or take actions to protect the environment.

Properly implemented, NEPA provides a proven and powerful tool for formulating policy and planning future federal actions. Yet, NEPA’s effectiveness as a planning tool often is diminished because it either has not been properly applied or integrated into agency planning. As witnessed in this article, strong parallels exist between the goals and requirements of NEPA and the specifications for implementing an Inter- national Organization Standards 14000 (IS0 14000) Environmental Management System (EMS). Combining NEPA with an EMS holds the promise for infusing NEPA’s substantive national policy goals into federal decisionmaking. As the third millen- nium approaches, such a strategy could lead to more effective planning and en- hanced environmental protection, while streamlining compliance.

Devising an effective integrated process that can satisfy the rigors of an international standard and/or certification, yet does not impact operational efficiency, requires a combination of prudence and resourceful- ness. To promote efficiency, minimize re- dundancy, and enhance environmental pro-

tection, the following discussion describes a strategy for effectively integrating NEPA with an EMS. This strategy is designed spe- cifically with adaptability in mind, such that it can be adopted by any agency and applied at virtually any level of federal program or project implementation.

WHY NEPA AND IS0 14000 EMS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER

As stated earlier, strong parallels exist between the goals and requirements of NEPA and those of the IS0 14000 EMS. Although the following strategy is directed at integrating NEPA with an IS0 14000 cer- tified EMS, it could be applied equally to integration with any EMS, that is consistent with the IS0 14000 standards. Hence, as used in this article, the term EMS is in- terpreted to mean an IS0 14000 consistent EMS.

As outlined in the following para- graphs, not only are the goals and requirements of NEPA and IS0 14000 internally consistent, their strengths and weaknesses tend to complement one another. Exhibit 1 summarizes the similarities and synergistic strengths that an integrated NEPA/EMS bring to one another. As indicated, a weakness in one system tends to be offset by the strengths of the other. These similarities and strengths are outlined in the following sections.

The NEPA regulations identify categories of federal activities that are subject to NEPA (Exhibit 2). It is important to note that NEPA provides an inclusive framework for integrating and unifying early federal planning requirements and processes. As depicted in Exhibit 2, establishment of federal policies and plans is an “action” subject to the requirements of NEPA. Ac- cordingly, federal policies and plans established as part of an EMS potentially are subject to the requirements of NEPA.

NEPA PROMOTES INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

Under NEPA’s implementing regula-

10 / Spring 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Charles H. Eccleston

Exhibit 1. Why NEPA and IS0 14000 Complement Each Other

Comparison ~

Goal

Mandate

Planning Function

External Input

Other Environmental Requirements

Life Cycle

Impact Assessment Requirements

Accumulated Environmenta Experience

Significance

Mitigation

Monitoring

Continual Improvement

NEPA

NEPA's goal is to protect the environment by ensuring that environmental factors are considered during the early planning process.

Lacks a substantive mandate to protec' the environment

Mandates that a comprehensive environmental planning process be conducted, but lacks an environmental quality system for ensuring the decisions are properly implemented.

Defines a detailed formal public 'scoping process" for identifying significant impact and eliminating nonsignificant issues.

Executive orders and CEQ guidance direct federal agencies to integrate pollution prevention measures, environmental justice, biodiversity, and a host of other considerations with NEPA.

Requires analysis of 'reasonably foreseeable" impacts over the life cycle of the action.

Provides detailed specifications for analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.

Nearly 30 years of experience has beel accumulated in the planning and analysis of significant environmental impacts.

Defines specific factors for determinin! the significance of environmental impacts.

Requires that mitigation measures are identified and analyzed as part of the planning processes.

Encourages (and sometimes requires] post-monitoring measures.

CEQ is promoting a cyclical process based on "adaptive management."

IS0 14000

ISD's goal is to protect the environment by identifying impacts and, using a system of continual improvement, to reduce these impacts.

Requires that substantive actions be taken, which lead to continual improvement in environmental protection.

Requires a planning function and provides a system for ensuring that decisions are appropri- ately implemented, but does not prescribe a detailed process for performing the planning function.

Requires a procedure (not public) be used to record and respond to external parties but does not prescribe a detailed process for doing so.

Requires a top-level environmental policy, including a commitment to prevention of pollution which is very broadly defined.

The IS0 14040 series describes in detail howto perform a life-cycle analysis.

Requires an investigation of "environmental aspects." Little specificity is provided on the requirements of this investigation.

A relatively new requirement that has accumulated only limited experience in the planning and anlaysis of significant environmental issues.

Provides no detailed direction for interpreting or determining the meaning of 'significance."

Provides a system for ensuring that mitigation measures are implemented.

Mandates monitoring as part of the continual improvement cycle.

A continual improvement process is a basic concept inherent in an EMS.

tions, federal agencies are instructed to integrate NEPA with other environmental reviews (e.g., regulatory requirements, per- mits, agreements, project planning, and policies) so that procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively; this re-

delays in compliance, and minimizes the overall cost of environmental protection.2

* Integrate the requirements of NEPA with other planning and environmental review procedures . . . (40 CFR §1500.2[clf quirement reduces duplication of effort,

A Strategy for Integrating NEPA with EMS and IS0 14000 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALlTY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 11

Exhibit 2. Categories of Federal Activities Subject to NEPA

Unforfunately, IS0 14000 provides only

limited specifications for

conducting the planning function.

Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following categories (40 CFR §1508.18[b]):

(11

(2)

Adoption of official policy. . . formal documents establishing an agency's policies which will result in or substantially alter agency programs. Adoption of formal plans, such as official documents prepared or approved by federal agencies which guide or prescribe alternative uses of federal resources, upon which future agency actions will be based. Adoption of programs, such as a group of concerted actions to implement a specific policy or plan.. . Approval of specific projects.. .

(3)

(4)

" . . . projects and programs . . . new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures (1508.18[a])."

"Actions include new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies; new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures; and legislative proposals (1508.18[a]) . . ."

Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements , . . prepare other required analyses and stud- ies concurrently with, and integrated with, the environmental impact state- ment. . . (40 CFR §1501.7[a1[61) Any environmental document in compliance with NEPA may be combined with any other agency document . . . (40 CFR s1506.4)

The NEPA process already incorporates extensive analytical and documentation requirements. With few modifications, a "A analysis can be used to achieve con- formance with IS0 14000 requirements.

Planning Versus Implementation Environmental planning is a manda-

tory element under IS0 14000. Unfortu- nately, IS0 14000 provides only limited specifications for conducting the planning function. Under IS0 14000, specific procedures and requirements for performing scoping, investigating "environmental aspects," defining temporal and spacial bounds, interpreting significance, and other requirements are only, at present, vaguely defined or inferred.

In contrast, NEPA's regulations provide highly prescriptive direction and requirements for ensuring that an accurate and sci- entifically defensible analysis has been pre-

pared that provides decisionmakers with information sufficient to reach an informed decision. These requirements are reinforced by nearly 30 years of experience, gained by agencies that are engaged in diverse mis- sions and environmental issues. Properly combined, a NEPAEMS system provides a synergistic process for planning actions and implementing decisions in a manner that protects and enhances environmental quality, while minimizing cost.

SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL As viewed by the courts, NEPA is

largely a procedural requirement. An agency must comply with the procedural aspects of NEPA, but is not obligated to select an environmentally beneficial alternative, or to demonstrate that its decision conforms to the environmental goals established in Section 101 of the Act.

NEPA's contribution derives notkom a substantive mandate to choose an environmentally beneficial alternative, but instead from its procedural requirement forcing decisionmakers to rigorously evaluate and consider the effects of potential actions on the environment, just as they would balance other more traditional factors such as cost and schedules. In contrast, an IS0 14000 consistent EMS involves a commitment to take substantive actions to improve environmental quality. Not only must environmen-


tally beneficial actions be taken, they must be undertaken in a cyclical process of continual environmental improvement. Thus, an EMS provides a mechanism for enforcing the substantive environmental mandate that NEPA lacks.

Similarly, NEPA requires analysis of mitigation measures but places no substantive mandate on decisionmakers to enact such measures. In contrast, IS0 14000 requires organizations to establish target objec- tives for improving environmental perfor- mance. Obtaining such targets necessitates implementing actions similar to those of NEF’A’s mitigation measures. Again, NEPA prescribes more rigorous requirements for planning and investigating mitigation measures, while IS0 14000 provides the “teeth” for implementing such measures.

ANALYTICAL SIMILARITIES The NEPA regulations provide

highly prescriptive requirements to ensure that an accurate and defensible analysis is performed, and thus to provide a decisionmaker with information that supports informed decisionmaking. NEPA is more demanding in requiring a comprehensive analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. In contrast, IS0 14000 requires investigation of s ig n i f i c ant “ environment a1 asp e c t s , ” which are the specific activities that affect the environment. While the environmental aspects must be determined, their environmental consequences or impacts on environmental resources are not required to be evaluated.

The NEPA process is reinforced by nearly three decades of federal experience, accumulated by a diverse range of federal agencies, each faced with a unique organic mission and a wide spectrum of environmental issues. From a planning perspective, NEPA provides a rich and more rigorous platform to ensure that environmental impacts are identified, evaluated, and considered before a decision is made to pur- sue an action.

Life-Cycle Analysis To the extent practical, NEPA requires

that an analysis be performed over the en- tire life cycle of an action, including con- nected actions. Both short- and long-term effects must be considered. To the extent possible, the “reasonably foreseeable” impacts of future actions must be identified and evaluated. The IS0 14040 series describes in detail how a life-cycle analysis should be performed. Integrating such requirements would reduce cost and paper- work.

Significance Significance of environmental impacts

is a central theme to both NEPA and IS0 14000. NEPA requires analysis of potentially “significant impacts” of federal actions. The concept of significance perme- ates NEPA’s regulatory provisions, which include a definition and specific factors to be used by decisionmakers in reaching de- terminations regarding significance. Not so with IS0 14000. Under IS0 14000, “significance” is defined vaguely and contains no factors for use in reaching a determina- tion. Again, NEPA brings nearly 30 years of experience to bear on the problem of determining “significance.” NEPA‘s regulations provide specific publicly reviewed factors, reinforced by case law, for assist- ing decisionmakers in reaching such deter- minations.

Integrating Pollution Prevention The President’s Council on Environ-

mental Quality (CEQ) has issued guidance indicating that, where appropriate, pollution prevention measures are to be coordi- nated with and included in the scope of a NEPA analy~is .~ A number of federal agencies have also issued similar directives. ISO-14000 speaks to the merits of pollution prevention, but mainly from the standpoint of establishing a top-level policy committed to pollution prevention. Under an integrated process, NEPA provides an ideal framework to evaluate and integrate

Under IS0 14000, “significance” is defined vaguely and contains no factors for use in reaching a deterrnina tion.

A Strategy for Integrating NEPA with EMS and IS0 14000 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 13

a comprehensive pollution prevention strategy/plan, while IS0 14000 provides a top-down policy to ensure that pollution prevention is actually incorporated at the operational level.

Public Participation As mentioned earlier, public participa-

tion is essential to the NEPA process. De- cisions regarding significance and the choice of alternatives are highly dependent on the concerns of stakeholders. In contrast, the IS0 14000 series has no requirement for public participation, only a requirement to develop a plan for external communications and inquiries. The lack of such a requirement is a clear weakness in almost all parts of IS0 14000. This is another case in which NEPA's three decades of experience with public scoping and participation balance the weaknesses of an IS0 14000 EMS.

Decisions regarding significance and the

choice of alternatives are

high/y dependent on the concerns of

stakeholdem.

Monitoring and Continuous Improvement The NEPA regulations strongly encour-

age, and in some instances mandate, incor- poration of monitoring. The courts, how- ever, generally have not insisted that agencies incorporate monitoring as part of the NEPA process. In contrast, monitoring is a basic element inherent in an EMS. A properly integrated NEPA/EMS ensures that monitoring is executed correctly.

Adaptive Management and Strategic Planning Recently, CEQ has begun advocating

two new paradigms? The first, referred to as adaptive management, consists of five steps: predict, mitigate, implement, moni- tor, and adapt. The intent of this new approach is to allow mid-course corrections based on the findings of environmental monitoring.

Under an EMS, a monitoring step is a basic element used to ensure that the organization's environmental policy/plan has been implemented properly. As appropriate, a plan is developed to correct defi- ciencies and improve environmental per-

formance. The cycle is repeated. The EMS plan/policy is revised and re-implemented. What appears to have gone largely unnoticed is that adaptive management is not only consistent with, but is in fact sur- prisingly similar to, the continual improvement cycle underlying an EMS (see Exhibits 3 and 4).

The second paradigm, referred to as strategic planning, incorporates a collabo- rative approach for identifying and solving environmental problems within the agency's internal planning process, at the early planning stages. An EMS could provide a crucial mechanism for integrating strategic planning into agency operations.

STRATEGY FOR INTEGRATING AN EMS WITH NEPA

A strategy for integrating an EMS with NEPA is depicted in Exhibit 3. Conceptu- ally, Exhibit 3 is composed of three dis- crete functions or phases: (1) centralized planning and decisionmaking, (2) implementation, and (3) environmental monitoring and enforcement.

.

Policy Planning Phase The proposed scheme is initiated with

the step of establishing a high-level organizational environmental policy and a commitment to environmental quality (see first block, Exhibit 3). Next, an effort is mounted to develop a specific plan for implementing the environmental policy (see second block, Exhibit 3). Drawing on expertise and experience from a diverse array of planning requirements and entities, an interdisciplinary effort is used in developing an Environmen- tal Implementation Plan (EIP). The EIP might be prepared for a major federal program or installation; in other cases, an EIP might be prepared for a particular facility, operation, or a project-specific action. Here, NEPA provides the interdisciplinary framework for integrating and coordinating all early environmental planning, reviews, and analyses necessary to support formulation of the EIP. Thus, the EIP might incorporate an

14 / Spring 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL DUALITY MANAGEMENT Charles H. Eccleston

array of related environmental issues such as pollution prevention, safety procedures, habitat management practices, environmental justice, sustainable development, and other related goals or disciplines.

Analysis, Significance, and Decisionmaking

In the third block of Exhibit 3, NEPA documentation is prepared for projects/ plans having a potential to directly, indi- rectly, or cumulatively affect the “quality of the human environment.” NEPA’s public scoping process is used to obtain public input and sort significant issues from nonsignificant issues. Consistent with NEPA, scenarios and alternative approaches are investigated as part of the process for developing the EIP. Actions, alternatives, and impacts are evaluated pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, and any additional requirements that might be promulgated as part of the EMS. This analysis also can be used to prepare an emergency response plan, thus satisfy-

ing an important EMS requirement. As described earlier, NEPA’s definition of significance and its ten significance factors could be used to reach final decisions about the EIP and actions pursuant to implementing the EMS [see fourth block, Exhibit 3).

Implementation Phase Once the EIP is completed and a final

decision is reached, an effort is begun to implement the EIP/final decision. A centralized planning function could be used to coordinate implementation of the plan within the respective federal facilities and operations. At the lower facility or operational level, Environmental Compliance Officers (ECOs) or equivalents could be assigned responsibility for preparing a more detailed site-specific Facility Implementa- tion Plan (FIP) for implementing the EIP, thus satisfying the fifth block shown in Ex- hibit 3.

Under this scheme, the EIP provides high-level direction and constraints that

Exhibit 3. Conceptual Process for Integrating an EMS with NEPA

A Strategy for Integrating NEPA with EMS and IS0 14000 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 15

the FIP must meet. Thus, individual FIPs could be “tiered” from the EIP, providing facility/project-specific direction for implementing results of the planning process by way of the EMS. The centralized planning office could be assigned responsibility for approving each FIP so as to ensure continu- ity and consistency. Implementation problems and “cross-cutting” issues also could be elevated to the centralized planning office for resolution.

Furthermore, the EMS requires extensive job-appropriate training of all affected employees, to ensure that the FIPs are implemented correctly. Defining and track- ing the appropriate training requirements could be a centralized function, while performing training is an operations-specific function.

Monitoring and Enforcement Phase As depicted in the sixth block of Ex-

hibit 3, a centralized oversight office could be assigned responsibility for performing reviews and monitoring facility and opera-

tional compliance. An ECO (or equivalent) could be assigned responsibility for preparing and transmitting input and status re- ports to the oversight office. Audits could be performed periodically by the oversight office to verify compliance.

The monitoring data are evaluated to verify compliance and effectiveness of the EMS in meeting the established policy and plan. As appropriate, the organizational policy/plan is revised to correct deficien- cies (see loop branching to box labeled “Corrective Action,” Exhibit 3). Substan- tial changes could be made at the centralized planning level, while less significant changes might be implemented at the facility level by revising the FIP. The ultimate concept behind an EMS is that impacts will eventually dissipate, such that the next plan might address impacts different from those in the existing plan. Such a process ensures a continuous improvement cycle, which is the hallmark of an EMS, and also promotes CEQ’s paradigm of adaptive management.

Exhibit 4. Simplified Overview of a Typical Environmental Management System


NOTES 1. T h e N a t i o n a l Env i ronmenta l Po l i cy Act of 1969, as

a m e n d e d ( P u b l i c Law 91-190.42 U S C . 994321-4347, Janua ry 1, 1970.

2. CEQ, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy

3. CEQ, Guidance on Pollution Prevention and the National Environmental Policy Act, published a t 58 FR 6478, J a n u a r y 29, 1993.

4. C E Q , The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of its Effectiveness After Twenty-Five Years, 1997.

Act, 40 CFR, P t S . 1500-1508, 1978.

Charles H. Eccleston is a principal scientist with the NEPA Group, Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford Inc. He is chairman of the Tools and Tech- niques (TNT) NEPA Practice Committee which is char- tered under National Association of Environmental Professionals with responsibility for establishing na- tionally Accepted Methods of Professional Practice (AMPPs) for streamlining andimproving the effectiveness of the NEPA process. Recently, he participated as a member of a White House sponsored task force

A Strategy for Integrating NEPA with EMS and IS0 14000

established to provide recommendations and support for the Council on Environmental Qualify’s Reinvent- ing NEPA Initiative. This article is an outgrowth of this effort.

The author would like to acknowledge Dr. J.A. Roberts (President, National Association of Environ- mental Professionals) and Mr. A.J. McCusker (Presi- dent-Elect National Association of Environmental Pro- fessionals) who reviewed this article with respect to its programmatic implications; Ms. R.C. Schenck (U.S. Technical Advisory Group, IS0 14000 Standards), who reviewed and provided comments on the article from the perspective of IS0 14000. Special thanks are ex- tended to Ms. S.A. Resetar (Environmental PolicyAna- lysts, RAND Corporation) who provided insighlful comments, particularly from the perspective of this approach in terms ofnational environmentalpolicy and clarity of the overall concept. Mr. F: March (NEPA Working Group-Chairman, National Association of Environmental Professionals) and J. L Lee (President, Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc.) contributed valuable suggestions with emphasis on NEPA. Finally, Mr. TL Kuusinen (Pacific Northwest National Labora- tories) reviewed the article from a comprehensive environmental standpoint.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT / Spring 1998 / 17

Documents

A strategy for integrating NEPA with EMS and ISO 14000