One of the recurring questions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)¹ is the extent to which it requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on people. It is undisputed that the impacts that must be addressed within an environmental impact statement (EIS) include effects on natural resources and ecosystems. Certainly, where a proposed federal action will induce direct biological impacts in humans, they must be explored with an EIS. But how about effects on social conditions, such as those that might be created by the construction of a low-income housing project? Or, perhaps, the fear and psychological stress that might be suffered by those living near a nuclear missile launching site? Historically, impacts of this kind have been accorded second-class status. A recent court of appeals decision, however, stands out as a noteworthy though carefully circumscribed rejoinder.

People Against Nuclear Energy v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission² grew out of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proceeding concerning the proposed resumption of power generation at the undamaged Unit #1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. The issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was whether the NRC, before permitting the restart of the reactor, is required by NEPA to evaluate the extent, if any, to which such a decision might induce "phychological stress" among those living near the plant. Two members of the three-judge panel concluded that it is, and ordered the agency to conduct an assessment of such effects before authorizing resumption of power production. Yet, the third panel member condemned this result as unsupported by the statute and contrary to the case law, adding bitterly that the decision is another step in the D.C. Circuit's successful campaign to "[take] over control of the nuclear industry."³