The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") discussing the "reasonably foreseeable" environmental impacts of "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") prepares EISs for the relicensing and construction of nuclear facilities.  Despite the well documented potential of a terrorist attack on these facilities, the NRC has declined to consider the effects of such an attack when preparing EISs. Further, courts have not provided consistent guidance-circuits are split as to whether, under NEPA, the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant are not too attenuated from the federal action to be considered EIS.

 In licensing a nuclear facility, does the NRC "cause" the environmental damage that could result from a terrorist attack on the facility? An affirmative conclusion defies intuition but invites another query: in the wake of September 11th, are terrorist attacks so unforeseeable that the NRC should categorically exclude them from an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts?

 This Note argues that under NEPA, the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant are not too attenuated from federal action and must be considered in an EIS. In Part I, this Note discusses the background and history of NEPA, and how courts have interpreted NEPA's causality requirement. In Part II, this Note examines the recent circuit split in detail. In Part III, this Note argues that the best reading of NEPA requires inclusion of the possible effects of a terrorist attack in an EIS, and concludes that this outcome is consistent with legal precedent, NEPA's intent, and public policy considerations.