The Commission recently issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) directing NRC Staff to revise the NRC’s National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and update related NRC guidance and policies. The NRC’s efforts are intended to streamline its NEPA process, consistent with broader federal agency trends, and implement efficiencies mandated by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA).
Background
NEPA requires the NRC to prepare environmental assessments (EA) or environmental impact statements (EIS) in connection with certain proposed licensing and regulatory actions. The FRA was signed into law on June 3, 2023, enacting certain amendments to the NEPA.
In May 2024, in response to the FRA, NRC Staff submitted a policy paper to the Commission presenting various options and recommendations for updating and conforming the agency’s NEPA regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and its broader environmental review framework (SECY-24-0046).
The NRC explained the purpose of developing these options was “to balance meaningful public engagement while codifying new requirements, remov[e] any inconsistencies with NEPA, and reduc[e] the amount of time spent on and number of resources involved in environmental reviews.”
The SRM
In its July 28, 2025 SRM, the Commission approved nearly all of those recommendations, directing NRC Staff to initiate a consolidated rulemaking for the following purposes:
- Modify the scope of the “purpose and need” statement used to describe licensing actions: The NRC will evaluate whether its current approach for defining the purpose of and need for the action, and alternatives to that action (especially for reactors), is sufficiently streamlined. The Commission expressly instructed NRC Staff to limit the alternatives analysis to “avoid analysis of forms of generation outside the NRC’s regulatory and licensing authority.”
- Reconsider its prescriptive “mandatory EIS” regulations: The NRC will explore eliminating 10 CFR 51.20(b), which requires the NRC to prepare an EIS for specific actions regardless of whether an EIS is truly required by statute. This would provide greater flexibility for the agency to prepare EAs in appropriate circumstances.
- Authorize applicants to prepare environmental documents (EA or EIS) with NRC oversight:During the rulemaking process, the NRC will consider (1) whether and how an applicant should be involved in an EIS’s scoping process; (2) what NRC supervision would entail and whether it would occur before or after the application is submitted, or both; and (3) the extent to which conforming changes to other regulations might be necessary to accommodate changes to the format or content of applications.
- Streamline and enhance efficiency in the overall Part 51 process: Specifically, the NRC will evaluate deadline extensions, establishment of start/end points for EAs and EISs, bifurcated application submittals, acceptance and docketing criteria, and opportunities for preapplication interactions, and will revise the definitions of certain codified terms.
Alongside the rulemaking, the Commission directed NRC Staff to consider developing new guidance or updating existing guidance to ensure a consistent process to reevaluate generic environmental impact statements and codified environmental information to ensure that the analysis remains valid. The Commission disapproved a recommendation to develop a Commission policy statement and instead directed the NRC Staff to update existing guidance to clarify expectations and procedures for the NRC’s participation as a cooperating agency where another agency is the lead agency.
Finally, although SECY-24-0046 was issued in May 2024—and focused on changes to comply with the FRA, which was enacted in 2023—the Commission leveraged its SRM to direct further changes in response to congressional directives in the July 2024 ADVANCE Act and the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado.
Most notably, the Commission directed Staff to evaluate the potential codification of “mitigated” findings of no significant impacts (FONSIs); additional categorical exclusions; and limiting NRC NEPA reviews to “those environmental effects with a direct connection to radiological impacts.”
How We Can Help
Morgan Lewis is closely monitoring the NRC’s revisions to its NEPA implementing regulations and stands ready to assist with any questions on this matter or its impact on other subject areas.