NEPA and Terrorism: Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift?

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 2002 9

Charles H. Eccleston

© 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ffej.10030

NEPA and Terrorism: IsIt Time for a ParadigmShift?


Most National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents and other similarplanning processes have tended to focus almost exclusively on “environmental”issues. Yet, today we find ourselves facing new problems and issues as we combatthe war on terrorism. This article illustrates how NEPA and other similarplanning processes can provide an essential key in helping to safeguard thenation’s homeland from terrorism. As the reader will soon see, NEPA and othersimilar planning processes provide virtually all the essential elements necessaryfor performing a comprehensive, rigorous, and scientifically based process forplanning for, scoping, and identifying potential terrorist scenarios, evaluatingtheir impacts, and developing alternatives and mitigation measures that canreduce or eliminate potential threats to high-value terrorist targets. In particular,“standard” accident analyses provide a nearly perfect mechanism for performingthe analysis of potential terrorist attacks. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In 1941, Japan unleashed a sudden and devastating attack on theUnited States, virtually destroying the naval base at Pearl Harbor. Thiswas not the first time Americans faced a sneak attack, nor would it proveto be the last. The unprovoked attack of September 11, 2002, proved thatall too well. For the first time in American history, the very heartland ofthe nation has come under attack.

Today, we are facing a new and very different kind of enemy. This isan “invisible” enemy; it is nowhere and everywhere. This is an enemythat is patient, cunning, resourceful, fanatical, and bent on overturningWestern civilization. This is unlike any enemy we have ever faced. Toprevail, we must be equally resourceful, clever, and committed towinning the war on terrorism.

By now you may be asking, “Fine, but what does this have to do withenvironmental planning?” As the reader will soon learn, if the system-

Charles H. Eccleston is president of Environmental Planning and NEPA Services Corporation,which provides expert and streamlined consulting assistance in all aspects of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) and environmental planning. He is the author of the threeleading textbooks on NEPA: The NEPA Planning Process: A Comprehensive Guide withEmphasis on Efficiency and Environmental Impact Statements: A Comprehensive Guideto Project and Strategic Planning, both published by John Wiley and Sons Inc.; the third text,Effective Environmental Assessments: How to Manage and Prepare NEPA EAs, ispublished by CRC Press. He may be contacted at [email protected] or http://www.nepa-planning.com.

10 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Summer 2002

NEPA and Terrorism: Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift?

atic and rigorous discipline of environmental planning is properlyexercised, it could prove to be a key and critical ingredient in winning thewar on terrorism.

IS A PARADIGM SHIFT IN THE WINDS?Thomas Kuhn shook the scientific establishment in 1962 with his book

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Prior to Kuhn, scientists generallybelieved that technical progress was achieved through the steady, un-ceasing march of gradual developments; this belief, or perhaps myth, isstill widely believed by much of the general public as well as a largesegment of the scientific community.

In his book, Kuhn boldly challenged this widely accepted paradigm.He challenged the belief by arguing that progress is not a smooth, steadytransition. Instead progress manifests itself in a series of major chal-lenges, sometimes even revolutionary confrontations, to mainstreambeliefs. Accepted theories, methodologies, and approaches tend to betoppled by one sudden stroke rather than through small evolutionarychanges. Today, Kuhn’s theory is popularly summarized in terms of themore palatable phrase “paradigm shift.”

Unfortunately, progress is often muted because it doesn’t conform toaccepted premises. A paradigm shift in thinking must often surmountaccepted dogma—the antithesis of new or innovative approaches.

Since the attack of 9-11, this author has increasingly come to believethat the scientific community is once again at the crossroads of a newparadigm shift. To date, very little attention has been given to the role,if any, “environmental” planning processes such as the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 19691 might provide in combating thewar on terrorism. Unfortunately, there has been virtually no directionissued on whether or how such analyses should be performed. In fact,prior to September 11, the only NEPA book that even briefly mentionedthe subject of analyzing potential terrorist events was the text EffectiveEnvironmental Assessments.2

Some might at first question the relevancy or linkage between usingplanning processes such as NEPA (which have “traditionally” beenviewed as strictly environmental planning processes) to evaluate andcounter potential terrorist scenarios.

THE LINKAGE BETWEEN NEPA AND EVALUATINGPOTENTIAL TERRORIST THREATS

Implemented correctly, NEPA and other similar “environmental”planning processes can provide a crucial, cutting-edge tool for assistingplanners, policy makers, and decision makers, as well as the public, insecuring the nation’s homeland. In particular, NEPA provides a highlyflexible process for evaluating impacts of potential actions.

For instance, under NEPA, an environmental impact statement (EIS)must be prepared for major federal actions that may significantly affect thequality of the human environment. The term “human environment” hasbeen interpreted very broadly by the courts.

. . . NEPA and othersimilar “environmental”planning processes canprovide a crucial, cutting-edge tool for assistingplanners, policy makers,and decision makers, aswell as the public, insecuring the nation’shomeland.



Moreover, at least four (and perhaps all ten) of the factors cited in theCouncil on Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations for determiningsignificance are directly applicable in evaluating the significance ofpotential terrorist attacks.3 In particular, one of these factors states thatthe significance of an impact depends on “The degree to which theproposed action affects public health or safety.” Clearly, potential terror-ist attacks are actions having potentially significant impacts on “publichealth and safety.”

As depicted in Exhibit 1, NEPA, state environmental policy acts(SEPAs), environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and other similarplanning processes incorporate all the essential elements necessary forensuring that a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis ofpotential terrorist threats is performed:

Exhibit 1. NEPA (as Well as Other Similar Planning Processes)Incorporates the Essential Elements Necessary for Performing a

Comprehensive Analysis of Potential Terrorist Threats

• Provides a rigorous scoping process for ensuring that all potentialterrorist scenarios, impacts, alternatives, mitigation measures,and significant issues are identified;

• Provides for a public involvement process that not only allowsthe public to provide input into the planning process, but alsoaffords agencies flexibility to protect national security byrestricting public access to material that is of a sensitive orclassified nature;

• Details specific requirements for consulting with other agenciesand experts;

• Specifies a rigorous planning process for evaluating not only theproposed action, but also reasonable alternatives and mitigationmeasures;

• Prescribes rigorous requirements for ensuring that potentiallysignificant impacts are properly evaluated;

• Prescribes detailed requirements that environmental assessment,EIS, and/or EIA documents must meet;

• Details specific requirements that must be followed in preparing,circulating, and reviewing the final analysis;

• Details specific factors for assessing the significance of impacts;• Requires that proposals be critically examined before a final

decision is made to take action;• Specifies a specific process that must be followed by the decision

maker in choosing a final course of action; and• Allows implementation of mitigation measures and a

comprehensive monitoring program for ensuring that alternativesand mitigation measures for reducing impacts are correctlyimplemented.



HOW NEPA, SEPA, AND EIA PROCESSES CAN BE USED INCOMBATING TERRORISM

As can be seen in Exhibit 2, planning processes such as NEPAprovide powerful tools for evaluating not only the environmentalimpacts of proposed projects, but also terrorist scenarios and theirresulting impacts.

Exhibit 2. How NEPA, SEPA, EIA, and Other Similar PlanningProcesses Can Be Used in Combating Terrorism

• Properly integrated and executed, planning processes such asNEPA provide an ideal tool for analyzing not only “traditional”environmental impacts of proposed projects, but also terroristscenarios and the impacts that could result from potential attackson proposed projects. Alternatives and mitigation measures canbe assessed for reducing or eliminating such threats.

• Federal agencies can prepare strategic or programmatic EISs fordeveloping “master plans” for identifying and securing high-value targets across new or existing broad programs. Theseanalyses can be used in evaluating programmatic alternativesand mitigation measures for countering or reducing such threats.Such analyses may run the gamut from evaluating threats to thenuclear industry to securing the nation’s borders or revampingimmigration policies and controls.

• Nearly one-half of the states have a “NEPA-like” process (SEPA),a number of which contain a requirement to prepare an analysison proposed actions. Such analyses can be used to effectivelyplan, evaluate, and address impacts of potential terrorist threatsassociated with proposed actions. These planning processes canbe used by states in preparing programmatic counterterroristplans for fortifying potential targets across an entire state.

• At the city and community level, a NEPA-like process can beapplied in identifying potential targets and evaluating potentialimpacts. The analysis can be used to identify and prioritize high-risk terrorist scenarios (water reservoirs, chemical factories,national monuments, airports, etc.); here again the results of suchstudies can be used in developing alternatives and mitigationmeasures for safeguarding high-value targets.

Most Western governments already have an EIA process similar tothat of NEPA. From the standpoint of the international community, EIAscan be prepared to identify potential targets, evaluate the impacts, andconsider alternatives and mitigation measures for safeguarding high-value targets in other nations.



EVALUATING POTENTIAL TERRORIST THREATSThe purpose of scoping is to solicit both internal and external input

from agencies so that the analysis can be more clearly focused on issuesof genuine concern. Experience has shown that a well-orchestratedscoping process provides a particularly effective tool for not only focus-ing on impacts/issues that are truly of concern, but also for dismissingthose that are unimportant from further study.

To this end, an interdisciplinary team (IDT) should be assembled todetermine the appropriate scope of the study (including potential terror-ist threats) and evaluate the potentially significant impacts on theenvironment, human health, and safety.

ACCIDENT ANALYSESThe approach used for performing a “standard” accident analysis (e.g.,

nuclear reactors, hazardous chemical or waste facilities, dams) in NEPA andother EIA processes is virtually identical to the same methodology that can beused in screening potential terrorist scenarios, evaluating their consequences,and if appropriate, developing alternatives and mitigation measures forreducing potential impacts to effectively safeguard high-threat targets.

Yet, the analysis of potential terrorist attacks poses particular chal-lenges because the number of potential scenarios is virtually limitlessand the likelihood of attack is unknowable. Fortunately, the situation isnot hopeless. The physical effects of an intentionally destructive act—whether caused by a fire, explosion, missile or other cause—are gener-ally nearly the same as, or “bounded” by, the effects of potentialaccidents. That is, the impacts (i.e., release of radioactivity, hazardousmaterials, fireballs) of an act of sabotage or terrorism on an operation orfacility would generally not exceed the impacts of a severe accident.

For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has a long history ofconsidering potential accidents and intentionally destructive actions(i.e., facility, operations, and transportation scenarios) in NEPA docu-ments. In nearly every case, it has found that the consequences ofintentionally destructive acts were “bounded” by those of severe acci-dents that had also been analyzed. Thus, the methodology now used forevaluating potential accidents can be easily adapted to the problem ofevaluating the impacts of potential terrorist acts. The text EffectiveEnvironmental Assessments describes the methodology for analyzingpotential accidents.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USE OF AN EA AND AN EISWith respect to NEPA, one must understand the difference between

an environmental assessment (EA) and an EIS, and how this affects theway potential terrorist threats may be evaluated. An EA is generallyused to determine whether an action could significantly affect thehuman environment.

In contrast, an EIS is normally prepared for actions in which it isknown or assumed that an action could significantly affect the humanenvironment. The purpose of preparing an EIS is to evaluate different

. . . the methodology nowused for evaluatingpotential accidents can beeasily adapted to theproblem of evaluating theimpacts of potentialterrorist acts.



courses of action (alternatives and mitigation measures) that might bepursued in an effort to reduce significant impacts, including those frompotential terrorist threats. Based on these differences, it should come asno surprise that the analysis of potential terrorist threats should betreated differently in an EA versus the way they are evaluated in an EIS.

Because an EA is attempting to determine whether an action couldresult in a significant impact, only one terrorist scenario needs to beevaluated—the maximum credible event (see Exhibit 3). Various terror-ist scenarios are identified and screened in an effort to identify themaximum credible event, which is then evaluated. If the maximumcredible event can be shown to be nonsignificant, no further review of theterrorist threat is warranted. However, if the maximum credible event isdeemed to be potentially significant, the federal agency has two options:(1) mitigate the impacts to the point of nonsignificance or (2) prepare anEIS to evaluate potential alternatives that might reduce these significantimpacts. A similar process can also be followed in preparing SEPA andEIA analyses.

The purpose of an EIS is to provide the decision maker with informa-tion on which to base informed decisions; it should come as no surprisethat planning for and evaluating potentially significant terrorist eventsin an EIS is performed in a markedly different manner from that of an EA.

Experience indicates that there tends to be an inverse relationshipbetween probability and consequences. That is, the higher the probabil-ity of an event, the lower the consequences tend to be. Conversely, thelower the probability, the higher the consequences. For this reason, a setof scenarios should be considered that represents a range or “spectrum”of reasonably foreseeable events.

As shown in Exhibit 4, various terrorist scenarios are screened in theEIS process in an effort to identify a spectrum or reasonable range ofpotentially significant threats. The reasonable range of potentially sig-nificant threats should include low-probability, high-consequence sce-narios as well as high-probability, low-consequence events. These sce-narios are then evaluated.

As alluded to earlier, a simpler approach might involve “bounding”the impacts of a potential terrorist attack by the effects of “maximumcredible” accident, as experience indicates that the consequences of anintentionally destructive act are generally “bounded” by those of asevere accident; prudence must be exercised in performing a boundinganalysis, as the decision maker may be unable to make a reasoned choiceamong alternatives because a bounding analysis tends to “mask” differ-ences among the alternatives. Professional judgment must be exercisedin determining the appropriate analytical approach that should be used.The text Environmental Impact Statements describes the general processfor developing alternatives and performing an impact analysis.4

ARE FRESH APPROACHES NEEDED?While the analytical process for evaluating potential terrorist

threats is quite similar to a standard NEPA analysis, there are a

The reasonable range ofpotentially significantthreats should includelow-probability, high-consequence scenarios aswell as high-probability,low-consequence events.



Exhibit 3. Using an EA to Evaluate Potential Terrorist Threats



Exhibit 4. Using an EIS to Evaluate Potential Terrorist Threats



number of methodologies and regulatory procedures that might needto be modified or performed differently from a more “standard”environmental analysis. For example, methods for enlisting publicinvolvement, scoping terrorist scenarios, and restricting dissemina-tion of sensitive or classified information might need to be imple-mented differently from the way NEPA and other similar environ-mental planning processes have been practiced in the past. Newapproaches may therefore need to be developed.

Developing practical guidance on how NEPA and other similarplanning processes can be effectively used for securing the nationagainst future terrorists attacks is needed. For this reason, the author iscurrently writing a book for publication later this year, tentatively titled,NEPA in an Age of Terrorism: How to use NEPA, SEPA, EIA, and CommunityPlanning Studies in Planning, Evaluating, and Countering Terrorism.

Yes, perhaps it is time for a paradigm shift—one that might radicallyenhance our nation’s ability to thwart catastrophic terrorism. ❖

NOTES1. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Public Law 91-190, 42USC 4321-4347, January 1, 1970.

2. Eccleston, C.H. (2001). Effective environmental assessments: How to manage andprepare NEPA EAs. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Press.

3. Council on Environmental Quality, Regulations for Implementing the ProceduralProvisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR 1500-1508.

4. Eccleston, C.H. (2000). Environmental impact statements: A comprehensive guide toproject and strategic planning. New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc.

Documents

NEPA and Terrorism: Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift?