The terms source material, byproduct material, and fissionable material were the names given to the various nuclear materials controlled by the 1946 Act, and were defined respectively in Sections 5(b) (1), 5(c) (1), and 5(a) (1) thereof. The term "fissionable material" was replaced by the term "special nuclear material" under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. See footnote 10, infra.

3 Sec. 4 (c) (1), 1946 Act.

+ Sec. 5(a) (2), 1946 Act.

Sec. 11 (a) (1), 1946 Act.

Sec. 11 (c) (2) (A) and (B), 1946 Act. * Public Law 83-703, 68 Stat. 919 (1954), as amended, 42 USC 2011-2281, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act.

* The terms "production facility" and "utilization facility" are defined in Section 11 v. and cc. of the 1954 Act. Except for certain military activities involving the Department of Defense, no person within the United States may transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export any nuclear reactor, nuclear fuels reprocessing facility, fission product conversion and encapsulation plant, or other utilization or production facility except under and in accordance with a license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 103 or 104. Sec. 101, 1954 Act.

"Public Law 88-487, 78 Stat. 604 (1964), the so-called Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.

[p. 9032]

10 The term is defined in Sec. 11 aa., 1954 Act. Essentially it refers to plutonium, uranium 233, and uranium enriched in the 235 isotope.

11 See Secs. 53. 62 and 81, 1954 Act.

12 Sec. 271, 1954 Act, as amended by Public Law 89-135, 79 Stat. 551 (1965).

13 Public Law 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (1959). 14 I.e., quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass.

15 IO CFR § 150.15 (a) (1) (1965).

16 Alabama, Arizona. Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi. Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

H. Rept. No. 1125, S. Rept. No. 870, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959).

15 Id. at 9.

19 See Corwin, Constitution of the United States of America (1963), p. 807.

See, e.g., Mich. Ops. Atty. Gen. No. 4073 (1963); Cavers, State Responsibility in the Regulation of Atomic Reactors, 50 Ky. L.J. 29, 29-32 (1961); Estep & Adelman, State Control of Radiation Hazards: An InterGovernmental Relations Problem, 60 Mich. L. Rev. 41 (1961); Committee on Atomic Energy, N.Y. State Bar Assn., State Jurisdiction

22 Official Opinion, July 23, 1964, p. 2.

Committee on Atomic Energy, N.Y. State Bar Assn., State Jurisdiction to Regulate Atomic Activities: Some Key Questions (1963), supra note 20, pp. 4-5.

Boswell v. City of Long Beach, 1 CCH Atom. En. L. Rept. 4045 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1960); Northern Cal. Assn., etc. v. Public Utilities Commission, 37 Cal. Repts. 432, 39 P. 2d 200 (1962).

E.g., radium, radioactive materials produced in accelerators, X-ray machines, and fluoroscopes.

233 U.S.C. 466 et seq.

That Act defines "interstate waters" as "all rivers, lakes and other waters that low across or form a part of State boundaries, including coastal waters" (33 U.S.C. 466 j(e)).

Section 466 c. does, however, provide that nothing in the Act "shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States."

Section 14 of the FWPC Act (33 U.S.C. 466 k.) which provides that the Act shall not be construed as, among other things, superseding or limiting the functions, under any other law, of any other officer or agency of the United States, relating to water pollution, is not dispositive of questions of preemption. Since this section has not been changed by any of the various amendments to the Act since 1948, including those subsequent to the addition of section 274 to the Atomic Energy Act which set forth, in more or less clear terms, the extent to which states could exercise jurisdiction over byproduct, source and special nuclear material, its retention is evidence of Congressional intent to preserve the exclusive jurisdiction of the AEC with respect to discharges containing such material. However, the terms of the section are not necessarily inconsistent with a withdrawal of Federal preemptions and "restoration" of some jurisdiction over atomic energy materials to the states.

It may be noted that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, in its regulation relating to procedures for adoption and promulgation of state standards (18 CFR Part 620), described them ($620.2 (a)) as "Water quality standards adopted and promulgated by a State in accordance with applicable State law and with section 10(c) of the Federal Act" (33 F.R. 2632).

See Water Pollution Control Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on Public Works, on S. 649 et al., 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 119-122. S. 649 was a bill to amend the

FWPC Act, which passed the Senate in the 88th Congress, and contained provisions for establishing water quality standards for interstate waters somewhat similar to those in the bill passed by the 89th Congress which became P.L. 89-234, the Water Quality Act of 1965.

32 A description of the practical difficulties in state adoption and enforcement of water quality standards is found at 111 Cong. Rec. 8287-8 (April 28, 1965).

3 The Assistant Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Mr. Quigley, emphasized. in response to questions from Representative Harsha of Ohio, that no federal preemption was intended, and that there was nothing in the legislation to prevent the states from raising their standards above the levels set by the Federal Government (Water Pollution Control Hearings on Water Quality Act of 1965 before the Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., February 18, 19 and 23, 1965, pp. 80-81.)

31 It should be noted that section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act also establishes the Federal Radiation Council, and provides for its functions to include guidance for Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with states.

35 Frost v. Wenie, 157 U.S. 46 (1895); 1 Sutherland. Statutory Construction, pp. 365-6. Sutherland specifically discusses the question of abrogation of state law by Federal statutes and the revival of state legislation by repeal of Federal regulation (§§ 2026, 2027). The cases cited, however, all concern situations in which the Federal statute was expressly repealed or the obstacle to state action removed by express Congressional enactment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. CLEVELAND).

Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 and urge its approval by the House today. This legislation has evolved from the realization that existing laws are inadequate in meeting all situations in which pollution by oil is involved. The disaster which occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., 3 months ago served to highlight the need for further legislation, and gave impetus to this bill.

The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 will give the President the au

thority and the means to act quickly should another disaster like that at Santa Barbara, or one like the breakup of the tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of England, occur within our territorial waters. It sets up a revolving fund to clean up oil pollution. It levies a civil penalty of up to $10,000 in cases involving willful or negligent discharges of oil or matter in such quantities that it presents a pollution hazard. This legislation holds the owner or operator of a vessel financially responsible for cleaning up the pollution which they caused.

The act also deals with the subject of research and development in the water pollution field, extending the research provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act another 2 years.

REAL ISSUE IS FINANCING

Mr. Chairman, this bill does a great deal, but I feel that Congress is missing the point if it does not face up to the real issue involved in the whole question of how we control water pollution. That issue is the question of financing. For until Congress comes face to face with the question of where do we get the money to pay for all the programs we have passed, and resolves it, the quality of the water in our rivers and lakes will continue.

Almost every Congress since I have been here has enacted at least one water pollution control measure. The Land and Water Conservation Act of 1964, the Water Quality Act of 1965, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1968, these are a few that come to mind.

And yet, despite the gains we have made, and despite all this wonderful sounding legislation which we have enacted, the testimony which we heard recently in the Public Works Committee indicates that the situation is only getting worse. And so, Mr. Chairman, until we face the question of financing, we will find that the legislation we pass today, like that which we have enacted before, will be precious little help in combating

the pollution hazard which this Nation faces.

I have been in contact with State officials in New Hampshire to assess the opinions on this legislation. Their words have a familiar ring. Mr. William Healy, executive director of the New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission, says the bill is fine, but of little use to him unless there is some money behind it. Mr. Clarence Metcalf, director of municipal services for the same commission, said that within 6 months New Hampshire will have in excess of $10 million in projects waiting to be funded.

Mr. Metcalf expresses the commission's concern over the greatly reduced funding of water pollution control programs at the Federal level, and urges increased appropriations in fiscal year 1970 for the Clean Waters Act.

Still, it is obvious from looking at the state of the Federal budget today, there is little real prospect of additional revenue from pollution control programs from this source. This is a reality, and it is best we recognize it as such immediately and begin to look at other

sources.

One suggestion which holds some promise has been the use of tax credits to industries who construct sewage treatment facilities. There is no question that industry-not to mention the Government itself-is one of the most serious pollutors of our waters. Too few industries, however, do anything to reduce the amount of sewerage which they pour daily into our streams and rivers. A system of tax credits might provide the needed incentive for them to take the necessary steps in reducing their own pollution.

Another proposal, and one which I favor, would be similar to the highway trust fund, where those who use the highways pay a tax to do so. This money is placed in the trust fund, and used to [p. 9033]

construct new roads and improve old

ones.

WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TRUST FUND

Similarly, if Congress established a water pollution control trust fund, those who use our waters and are contributing to its pollution would pay a tax on it. This money would then be used to finance the construction of sewage treatment plants and other facilities used in the fight against pollution.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Congress will give immediate attention to the question of financing, for unless we resolve this most crucial question, I am afraid the situation will only continue to deteriorate, and will contribute to the growing belief among our constituents that the Federal Government is not able to cope with the really serious problems which are facing this country today.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MILLER), a member of the committee.

Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, clean water should be of concern to every American. Much of our recreation, industry, and natural environment is dependent on adequate supplies of good water. Water is the very foundation of life itself.

It is imperative that the Federal Government enact stringent measures to protect our water sources from the abuse of pollution. Too many of our rivers and lakes have already been turned into lifeless sewers and cesspools by man's wantonness and neglect. The tragedy of Lake Erie must not be repeated in the other Great Lakes and then in the world's oceans. Our civilization must police itself or we will be progressively poisoned by our own effluents.

H.R. 4148 is a major step in the direction of preserving the remaining purity of our natural water sources. Hopefully we may even begin to reverse the pollution processes that have desecrated so many of our waterways.

A major provision of this bill places the responsibility for cleaning up after a marine pollution disaster where it should be--on the operator or vessel that caused

it. If there is ever another Torrey Canyon or Santa Barbara catastrophe, there must be no question of legal liability for the resulting damages.

The grants authorized under this bill for scientific and technical training and research will be a wise investment in the future cleanliness of our waterways.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. MCCARTHY).

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

I will briefly explain a couple of the important sections of this bill.

Section 19 of the act sets up a program for demonstration projects to study methods for the elimination and control of acid or other mine drainage which results in pollution. The demonstration projects will be carried out under agreements with the States or interstate agencies and they are intended to demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility of possible abatement techniques. The State share of the cost of the project would be at least 25 percent and to encourage the States to participate in the program, that 25 percent can be in the form of land, facilities, and services. An appropriation of $15 million for the program is authorized. No more than 25 percent of the available funds can be allocated to any one State in the program.

Section 4 of the act authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts and grants with individuals, agencies, and organizations for research and development on the problem of lake eutrophication and other lake pollution problems. It also authorizes the Secretary to acquire lands and interests therein by purchase with appropriated or donated funds, or by donation, or by exchange, in connection with development of field laboratories, research facilities, and demonstration projects.

Section 4 contains the general authorization for the Secretary to undertake research studies, demonstrations, and so

on, by grant, contract, or otherwise for the prevention or control of oil pollution, including the removal of oil discharges. This section further includes general authorization for the Secretary to engage in research relative to the equipment which will be required to meet the standards for control of sewage from vessels which are covered elsewhere in the act. It should be noted that with respect to this research, the Secretary is directed to file a report of his findings prior to the effective date of any standards to be established in connection with vessel sewage.

The general research, investigation, and training program contained in the basic act is extended for 2 additional years at the present funding level of $65 million.

Section 5 of the act extends for 2 additional fiscal years the project research authority already contained in the basic law and authorizes appropriations for each of fiscal years 1970 and 1971 in the amount of $60 million.

Sections 6 and 7 are technical amendments providing for the deletion or repeal where required of the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.

Section 8 changes the name of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. This is a positive program to achieve high water quality standards, and the name of the administering agency should adequately reflect this

purpose.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK).

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4148 recognizes that waste from waterborne vessels is still another cause of pollution of our Nation's waters. In view of our resolve to restore and enhance the quality of our water by controlling waste discharges from our municipal sewers and our industrial complexes, we cannot ignore the wastes emanating from waterborne vessels. It is presently most severe in bays, inlets, lakes, harbors,

and marinas. These pollutants include sewage and other wastes. Many vessels are not equipped to provide even minimal treatment. With the growing popularity of recreation craft, corrective and preventive action must be set in motion now to prevent a more serious problem to our waters.

H.R. 4148 would

Provide for the control of sewage from vessels including foreign vessels using our waterways and commercial and recreational vessels:

Direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices for all vessels except vessels not equipped with installed toilet facilities, and it would direct the Coast Guard to issue regulations relative to the design, construction, installation, and operation of these devices on board such vessels;

Apply to existing vessels, the construction of which is initiated prior to issuance of the standards and regulations;

Apply to new vessels, the construction of which is initiated after issuance of the standards and regulations;

Provide that the initial standards shall be effective for new vessels 2 years after promulgation, but not earlier than December 31, 1971, and for existing vessels 5 years after promulgation; and

Provide that once the initial standards and regulations are effective a State or a political subdivision thereof may not adopt or enforce any law or regulation governing the design, manufacture, or installation of any marine sanitation device on board any vessel subject to the Federal standards or regulations. This would not, however, affect the State's authority to prohibit completely all sewage discharges from vessels in particular intrastate waters of the State, regardless of whether the sewage is treated or not. In such cases, however, the State must also prohibit waste discharges from all other sources.

H.R. 4148 would also

Provide for a system of certification by the Coast Guard of marine sanitation

devices;

Provide for the establishment of civil penalties after notice and opportunity for a hearing; and

Provide that provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Coast Guard.

Watercraft are of course only one of the many sources of pollution that must be corrected, but as we previously noted this pollution is highly visible and noxious. It is our belief that H.R. 4148 takes major strides in controlling this source of pollution in a reasonable manner. It provides appropriate time where it is needed and yet takes the remedial steps which are necessary in preventing major problems in the future.

Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chariman, will the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. BLATNIK. I shall be glad to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HUNGATE. On page 59, beginning on line 4, there is this language, "except that nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or modify the authority or jurisdiction of any State to prohibit discharges of sewage whether treated or not from a vessel within all or part of the intrastate waters of such State if discharges from all other sources are likewise prohibited."

Would that not mean that the States

[p. 9034]

during this 5-year period could not prohibit the discharge of primary waste from a vessel as long as a city or village discharges waste that had primary or secondary treatment?

Mr. BLATNIK. Would the gentleman read the last part of his question again? Mr. HUNGATE. It states in here that a State, as I read it, "except that nothing in this section shall be construed to affect or modify the authority or jurisdiction of any State to prohibit discharges of sewage whether treated or not from a vessel within all or part of the intrastate waters of such State if discharges from all other sources are likewise prohibited."

Mr. BLATNIK. It is my opinion that refers only to discharges of any and all