On May 24, 1982, in People Against Nuclear Energy (PANE) v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)' requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider the possibility of psychological health damage to the surrounding population when it decides whether to authorize the restart of Three Mile Island Unit No. 1 (TMI-1), which was not damaged in the accident that crippled Unit No. 2 (TMI-2). The court also ruled that the Atomic Energy Act' does not require the Commission to consider psychological health damage when making the TMI-1 restart decision.4 Reaction to this decision was swift; the Washington Post complained that it would "damage both the keystone of environmental law and the future of nuclear power, "while the Wall Street Journal described the decision as a "below-the-belt punch."' The Post urged a prompt appeal. Neither editorial mentioned the Atomic Energy Act decision. On April 19, 1983, the United States Supreme Court reversed the NEPA portion of the circuit court's decision. Since PANE, which had raised the issue of psychological health damage from the restart of TMI-1, did not seek certiorari from the lower court's adverse ruling under the Atomic Energy Act, it appeared that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry had been relieved of the burden of confronting the question whether nuclear accidents might cause unacceptable psychological health damage. The Post applauded the result, but noted that, "Common sense should have led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to hear all objections of persons opposed to reopening TMI. The failure at that site was a frightening and disruptive experience for those who live in the area." Indeed, the failure of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prevent the accident at Three Mile Island, coupled with its refusal to consider the impact of a possible restart of TMI-1 on the psychological well-being of local residents, has contributed to a political climate of substantial opposition to the reopening." Ironically, on the same day that the Post applauded the Supreme Court's decision regarding psychological health damage at Three Mile Island, the Court issued a second opinion that effectively places the future of Three Mile Island and other nuclear reactors in the hands of any state or local government that has the political will and the authority under state law to regulate activities for the purpose of protecting human psychological health.