The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) makes it
unlawful to discharge "pollutants" into navigable waters without a
permit from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and defines the term "pollutant" to include,
inter alia, "radioactive materials." The Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) regulates the production, possession, and use of three types
of radioactive materials -- source, byproduct, and special nuclear
materials -- and, pursuant to its authority under the AEA, the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) (now succeeded in this capacity by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has issued regulations governing
the discharge of such materials into the environment by AEA
licensees. After the EPA Administrator had disclaimed any authority
under the FWPCA to regulate the discharge of these three types of
radioactive materials covered by the AEA, respondents, who claimed
potential harm from the discharge of radioactive effluents from two
nuclear plants in Colorado operated in conformity with AEC
standards, brought suit against petitioners,
Page 426 U. S. 2
the EPA and its Administrator, seeking a declaration that the
definition of "pollutant" under the FWPCA encompasses all
radioactive materials, including those regulated under the AEA, and
an injunction directing petitioners to regulate the discharge of
all such materials. The District Court held that the AEC had
exclusive authority to regulate discharges of radioactive materials
covered by the AEA, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding,
exclusively by reference to the FWPCA's language and without
reference to its legislative history, that the FWPCA requires the
EPA to regulate discharges of all radioactive materials, including
those covered by the AEA.
Held:
1. To the extent that the Court of Appeals excluded reference to
the FWPCA's legislative history in discerning the meaning of the
statute, the court was in error, for,
"[w]hen aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in
the statute, is available, there certainly can be no 'rule of law'
which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on
'superficial examination.'"
United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.
S. 534,
310 U. S.
543-544. Pp.
426 U. S.
9-11.
2. The FWPCA's legislative history reflects a congressional
intention not to alter the AEC's control over the discharge of
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. Therefore, the
"pollutants" subject to regulation under the FWPCA do not include
such materials, and the EPA Administrator acted in accordance with
his statutory mandate in declining to regulate the discharge of
these materials. Pp.
426 U. S.
11-25.
507 F.2d 743, reversed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all
Members joined except STEVENS, J., who took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case.
Page 426 U. S. 3
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA), as amended in 1972, 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. §
1251
et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), to regulate the
discharge into the
Page 426 U. S. 4
Nation's waterways of nuclear waste materials subject to
regulation by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successors
under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). 68 Stat. 919, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2011
et seq. In statutory terms, the
question is whether these nuclear materials are "pollutants" within
the meaning of the FWPCA.
Respondents are Colorado-based organizations and Colorado
residents who claim potential harm from the discharge of
radioactive effluents from two nuclear plants -- the Fort St. Vrain
Nuclear Generating Station and the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons
components plant. These facilities are operated in conformity with
radioactive effluent standards imposed by the AEC pursuant to the
Atomic Energy Act. The dispute in this case arises because the EPA
has disclaimed any authority under the FWPCA to set standards of
its own to govern the discharge of radioactive materials subject to
regulation under the AEA. Respondents, taking issue with the EPA's
disclaimer of authority, brought this suit against petitioners, the
EPA and its Administrator, under § 505 of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. §
1365 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which authorizes "citizen suits" against
the Administrator for failure to perform nondiscretionary duties
under the FWPCA. They sought a declaration that the definition of a
"pollutant" under the FWPCA encompasses all radioactive materials,
including those regulated under the terms of the AEA, and an
injunction directing the EPA and its Administrator to regulate the
discharge of all such radioactive materials.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado held that the AEC had
exclusive authority to regulate discharges of radioactive materials
covered by the AEA.
Page 426 U. S. 5
373 F.
Supp. 991 (1974). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
reversed, holding that the FWPCA requires the EPA to regulate
discharges into the action's waters of all radioactive materials,
including those covered by the AEA. 507 F.2d 743 (1974). Because of
the importance of the issue involved in this case, we granted
certiorari. 421 U.S. 998 (1975). We now reverse.
II
Since 1946, when the first Atomic Energy Act was passed, 60
Stat. 755, the Federal Government has exercised control over the
production and use of atomic energy through the AEC -- replaced
since the commencement of this litigation by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) and the Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA). [
Footnote
1] Under the AEA, private parties are permitted to engage in
the production of atomic energy for industrial or commercial
purposes, but only in accordance with licenses issued by the AEC
(NRC) in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §
2133.
The comprehensive regulatory scheme created by the AEA embraces
the production, possession, and use of three types of radioactive
materials -- source material, [
Footnote 2]
Page 426 U. S. 6
special nuclear material, [
Footnote 3] and byproduct material. [
Footnote 4] In carrying out its regulatory duties
under the AEA, the AEC is authorized to establish "such standards .
. . as [it] may deem necessary or desirable . . . to protect health
or to minimize danger to life or property." 42 U.S.C. § 2201(b).
See also 42 U.S.C. §§ 2073(b), (e), 2093(b), 2111,
2133(a), (d), 2134(d). Pursuant to this authority, the AEC (NRC)
has established by regulation maximum permissible releases of
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials into the
environment by licensees. 10 CFR § 20.106 and App. B, Table II
(1976). The regulations further provide that licensees should, in
addition to complying with the established limits, "make every
reasonable effort to maintain . . . releases of radioactive
materials in effluents . . . as low as is reasonably achievable."
10 CFR § 20.1(c) (1976). Similarly, the regulations require that
nuclear facilities be designed to keep levels of radioactive
material in effluents "as low as is reasonably achievable." 10 CFR
§ 50.34a (1976).
See also 10 CFR §§ 50.36a, 50.57(a)(3),
(6) (1976). [
Footnote 5]
Page 426 U. S. 7
The FWPCA established a regulatory program to control and abate
water pollution, stating as its ultimate objective the elimination
of all discharges of "pollutants" into the navigable waters by
1985. In furtherance of this objective, the FWPCA calls for the
achievement of effluent limitations that require applications of
the "best practicable control technology currently available" by
July 1, 1977, and the "best available technology economically
achievable" by July 1, 1983. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (1970 ed., Supp.
IV). These effluent limitations are enforced through a permit
program. The discharge of "pollutants" into water is unlawful
without a permit issued by the Administrator of the EPA or, if a
State has developed a program that complies with the FWPCA, by the
State. [
Footnote 6] 33 U.S.C.
§§ 1311(a), 1342 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
The term "pollutant" is defined by the FWPCA to include,
inter alia, "radioactive materials." [
Footnote 7] But when
Page 426 U. S. 8
the Administrator of the EPA adopted regulations governing the
permit program, 40 CFR, pt. 125 (1975), he specifically excluded
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials -- those covered
by the AEA -- from the program upon his understanding of the
relevant legislative history of the FWPCA:
"The legislative history of the Act reflects that the term
'radioactive materials,' as included within the definition of
'pollutant' in section 502 of the Act, covers only radioactive
materials which are not encompassed in the definition of source,
byproduct, or special nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulated pursuant to the
latter Act. Examples of radioactive materials not covered by the
Atomic Energy Act and, therefore, included within the term
'pollutant' are radium and accelerator produced isotopes."
40 CFR § 125.1(y) (1975) (citations omitted). [
Footnote 8] It was the Administrator's
exclusion of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials from
the permit program, and consequent refusal to regulate them,
that
Page 426 U. S. 9
precipitated the instant lawsuit. The question we are presented
with, then, is whether source, byproduct, and special nuclear
materials are "pollutants" within the meaning of the FWPCA.
III
The Court of Appeals resolved the question exclusively by
reference to the language of the statute. It observed that the
FWPCA defines "pollution" as "the man-made or man-induced
alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological
integrity of water." 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (19) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
And it noted that the reference to "radioactive materials" in the
definition of "pollutant" was without express qualification or
exception, despite the fact that the overall definition of
"pollutant" does contain two explicit exceptions. [
Footnote 9] The court concluded from this
analysis of the language that, by the reference to "radioactive
materials," Congress meant
all radioactive materials. The
court explained:
"In our view, then, the statute is plain and unambiguous, and
should be given its obvious meaning. Such being the case, . . . we
need not here concern ourselves with the legislative history of the
1972 Amendments. In this regard, we would note parenthetically
that, in our view, the legislative history of the 1972 Amendments
is conflicting and inconclusive. Be that as it may, in the case
before us, there is no need to address ourselves to the ofttimes
difficult task of ascertaining legislative intent through
legislative history. Here, the legislative intent is clearly
manifested in the language of the statute itself, and we need not
resort to legislative history."
507 F.2d at 748 (citations omitted).
To the extent that the Court of Appeals excluded
Page 426 U. S. 10
reference to the legislative history of the FWPCA in discerning
its meaning, the court was in error. As we have noted before:
"When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in
the statute, is available, there certainly can be no 'rule of law'
which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on
'superficial examination.'"
United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.
S. 534,
310 U. S.
543-544 (1940) (footnotes omitted).
See Cass v.
United States, 417 U. S. 72,
417 U. S. 77-79
(1974).
See generally Murphy, Old Maxims Never Die: The
"Plain-Meaning Rule" and Statutory Interpretation in the "Modern"
Federal Courts, 75 Col.L.Rev. 1299 (1975). In this case, as we
shall see, the legislative history sheds considerable light on the
question before the Court.
Before turning to the various legislative materials, however, we
pause to consider an additional argument asserted by respondents on
the basis of the language of the statute. Section 1311(f), they
note, provides as follows:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, it shall
be unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the navigable
waters."
33 U.S.C. § 1311(f) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Respondents suggest
that it would be inconsistent for Congress in one section of the
FWPCA to prohibit the discharge of "radiological warfare agents"
and "high-level radioactive waste," both of which are subject to
AEA regulation, while at the same time exempting AEA-regulated
materials from the FWPCA's permit program. We see no inconsistency.
That Congress has chosen to ban completely the discharge of certain
high-level radioactive material regulated under the AEA does not,
by itself, indicate whether Congress wanted the discharge of other
radioactive material regulated under the AEA to be
Page 426 U. S. 11
subject to the FWPCA's permit program. Respondents argue
further, however, that Congress' use of the phrase
"[n]otwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter" before the
ban on the discharge of high-level radioactive waste suggests that
the discharge of such material would otherwise be subject to the
FWPCA's permit program. This argument is not entirely without
logical appeal, but we do not consider it determinative. Like the
more general argument based on the definition of a "pollutant" as
including "radioactive materials," this argument must be assessed
against the background of the relevant legislative history.
IV
The legislative history of the FWPCA speaks with force to the
question whether source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials
are "pollutants" subject to the Act's permit program. The House
Committee Report was quite explicit on the subject:
"The term 'pollutant' as defined in the bill includes
'radioactive materials.'
These materials are those not
encompassed in the definition of source, byproduct, or special
nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and regulated pursuant to that Act. 'Radioactive
materials' encompassed by this bill are those beyond the
jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. Examples of
radioactive material not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, and,
therefore, included within the term 'pollutant,' are radium and
accelerator produced isotopes."
H.R.Rep. No. 92-911, p. 131 (1972), 1 Leg.Hist 818 (emphasis
added). [
Footnote 10]
Page 426 U. S. 12
The definition of "pollutant" in the House version of the bill,
H.R. 11896, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., § 502(6) (1972), 1 Leg.Hist. 1068,
contained the same broad reference to "radioactive materials" as
did the definition in the Senate bill, S. 2770, 92d Cong., 1st
Sess., § 502(f) (1971), 2 Leg.Hist. 1697, and the bill ultimately
enacted as the FWPCA; for our purposes, the definitions are
identical. Moreover, the House version of the bill contained the
provision now codified as § 1311(f), banning the discharge of
radiological warfare agents and high-level radioactive waste
"[n]otwithstanding any other provisions of this Act." H.R. 11896,
supra, § 301(e), 1 Leg.Hist. 965. Thus, the House
Committee, describing the import of the precise statutory language
with which we are concerned, cautioned that the definition of
"pollutant" did not include those radioactive materials subject to
regulation under the AEA.
Respondents claim to find in the Senate Committee Report an
indication that the statutory definition of "pollutant" embraces
radioactive materials subject to AEA regulation. Section 306 of the
Senate bill, which corresponds to 33 U.S.C. § 1316 (1970 ed., Supp.
IV), required that the EPA Administrator establish "standards of
performance" with respect to the discharge of pollutants from
specified categories of sources, to be revised from time to time by
the Administrator. The Senate Committee Report noted that nuclear
fuels processing plants were not included, because the EPA did not
then have "the technical capability to establish controls for such
plants." S.Rep. No. 92-414, p. 59 (1971), 2 Leg.Hist. 1477. The
Report then observed that the Committee "expects that EPA will
develop the capability," and continued:
"The Bureau of Radiological Health, which was transferred to the
Environmental Protection Agency,
Page 426 U. S. 13
should have the capacity to determine those levels of control
which can be achieved for nuclear fuels processing plants. If they
do not, such a capability should be developed, and this particular
source should be added to the list of new sources as soon as
possible."
Ibid.
Petitioners assert that this statement by the Committee has no
bearing on the question before the Court. The statement,
petitioners suggest, reflects no more than a recognition, shared by
them, that the plants referred to were not intended to be wholly
excluded from the reach of the FWPCA -- a recognition that, in
their view, means that the EPA can control the discharge from such
plants of polluting materials other than source, byproduct, and
special nuclear materials. In short, petitioners contend that the
statement sheds no light on the question whether source, byproduct,
and special nuclear materials are pollutants under the FWPCA.
We agree with the petitioners that the Senate Committee
statement is addressed to the inclusion of nuclear fuels processing
plants in the category of sources subject to the EPA's control, not
to the inclusion of any particular materials within the definition
of "pollutant." It is true that the reference to the development of
control levels by the Bureau of Radiological Health [
Footnote 11] does permit the inference that
the Committee was contemplating controls over the discharge of
AEA-regulated radioactive materials. Still, we are not prepared to
attribute greater significance to this inference than to the more
explicit statement contained in the House Committee Report, a
statement that, as we shall see, is amply
Page 426 U. S. 14
supported by the discussion on the floors of the House and the
Senate.
A colloquy on the Senate floor between Senator Pastore, the
Chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and Senator
Muskie, the FWPCA's primary author, provides a strong indication
that Congress did not intend the FWPCA to alter the AEC's control
over the discharge of source, byproduct, and special nuclear
materials. Senator Pastore, referring to the need to define what
materials are "subject to control requirements" under the FWPCA,
noted that the definition of "pollutant" included the words
"radioactive materials." 2 Leg.Hist. 1265. The following exchange
then took place:
"MR. PASTORE. . . ."
"My question is this: does this measure that has been reported
by the committee in any way affect the existing law, that is, the
existing Atomic Energy Act of 1954, insofar as the regulatory
powers of the AEC are concerned with reference to radioactive
material?"
"MR. MUSKIE. It does not, and it is not the intent of this act
to affect the 1954 legislation."
"MR. PASTORE. In other words, this bill does not change that
feature of the Atomic Energy Act in any regard?"
"MR. MUSKIE. That is correct."
"MR. PASTORE. I thank the Senator."
"MR. MUSKIE. May I say, in addition, that legislation dealing
with the setting of effluent limitations as they involve nuclear
powerplants is now pending in the courts. The Senator is aware of
that litigation."
"For example, a recent decision of the U.S. Court
Page 426 U. S. 15
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in the case of Northern
States Power and Light versus Minnesota, raises the issue. I would
like to point out that the committee considered speaking
specifically to that decision, but chose to remain silent so as not
to prejudice the decision or any appeal from it."
"MR. PASTORE. Yes. As a matter of fact, that decision held that
the Federal Government did preempt in this field under existing
law. That is the opinion, and we hope this legislation does not
change that opinion in any way, and does not affect existing law.
That is all I am concerned with."
"MR. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct in his evaluation of the
legislation on that point."
Id. at 1265-1266.
Respondents contend that this colloquy "merely reiterates that
the FWPCA does not alter the regulatory authority of the AEC" over
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. Brief for
Respondents 40-41. The exchange, they assert, says nothing about
the EPA's authority to regulate the same materials. The discussion
is consistent, they claim, with their position that the AEC must
defer to the EPA in the setting of effluent limitations for
AEA-regulated material that, for example, NRC licenses must conform
to permits issued under the FWPCA. We disagree.
The thrust of Senator Muskie's assurances that the FWPCA would
not "in any way affect" the regulatory powers of the AEC was, we
think, that the AEC was to retain full authority to regulate the
materials covered by the AEA, unaltered by the exercise of
regulatory authority by any agency under the FWPCA. This conclusion
is reinforced by Senator Muskie's reference to the case of
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143 (CA8
1971). In that case, which was subsequently
Page 426 U. S. 16
affirmed summarily by this Court, 405 U.S. 1035 (1972), the
Eighth Circuit had held that the AEA created a pervasive regulatory
scheme, vesting exclusive authority to regulate the discharge of
radioactive effluents from nuclear power plants in the AEC, and
preempting the States from regulating such discharges. The absence
of any room for a state role under the AEA in setting limits on
radioactive discharges from nuclear power plants [
Footnote 12] stands in sharp contrast to
the scheme created by the FWPCA, which envisions the development of
state permit programs, 33 U.S.C. § § 1342(b), (c) (1970 ed., Supp.
IV), and allows the States to adopt effluent limitations more
stringent than those required or established under the FWPCA. 33
U.S.C. § 1370 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
See also 33 U.S.C. § §
1311(b)(1)(C), 1314(b), 1316(c), 1341(a)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
[
Footnote 13] Senator
Page 426 U. S. 17
Muskie's specific assurance to Senator Pastore that the FWPCA
would not affect existing law as interpreted in
Northern
States can only be viewed, we think, as an indication that the
exclusive regulatory scheme created by the AEA for source,
byproduct, and special nuclear materials was to remain unaltered.
[
Footnote 14]
In the course of the House's consideration of the FWPCA, an
unsuccessful attempt was made to alter the AEA's scheme for
regulating the discharge of the radioactive materials involved in
this case. Representative Wolff proposed to amend what is now 33
U.S.C. § 1370 (1970 ed., Supp. IV) , which gives States the
authority to set more stringent limits on the discharge of
pollutants, by adding a paragraph giving the States the authority
to regulate the discharge of radioactive wastes from nuclear power
plants. The debate on that amendment and its defeat by a 3-to-1
vote provide solid
Page 426 U. S. 18
support for the conclusion that the FWPCA's grant of regulatory
authority to the EPA and the States did not encompass the control
of AEA-regulated materials
The Wolff amendment, according to its author, would "give the
States a voice in deciding what kinds and amounts of such
radioactive wastes may be discharged into their waters." 1
Leg.Hist. 544. In explaining the need for such an amendment,
Representative Wolff noted that the time had come "to seriously
consider standards more stringent than those promulgated by the
AEC."
Id. at 545. Representative Frenzel, a cosponsor of
the amendment, pictured it as an attempt to alter the result in the
Northern States case. The AEC, he explained, could not be
expected to protect the health and safety of the public as
effectively as the States, because "the AEC has a dual mission --
that of promotion, as well as safety." 1 Leg.Hist. 548. [
Footnote 15]
The opponents of the Wolff Amendment voiced strong opposition to
the transfer of the AEC's regulatory authority to the States or to
the EPA. Representative Stanton, a Member of the House Committee on
Public Works, which reported the House bill, stated:
"The amendment presents the House with a very complex and
difficult proposition. It proposes to take authority for the
setting of pollution control standards from the AEC and places it
in the hands of EPA. For normal operations involving pollution,
that control properly belongs under EPA. But atomic energy is a
peculiar field. To date, the operation of the atomic energy program
has been under the control of the Commission itself. Eventually,
such control will be delegated to the States as more and more
knowledgeable people at the State level become
Page 426 U. S. 19
involved in the atomic energy program. That time, however, has
not yet arrived. Until we reach that stage, it is obvious that the
control of which we speak should remain with the Atomic Energy
Commission itself, as the committee points out on page 131 of House
Report 92; 911 [quoted
supra at
426 U. S.
11], which accompanies this bill. For this reason, I
would oppose the amendment offered by my distinguished
colleague."
Id. at 554-555. Representative Price, Vice Chairman of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, argued against the amendment
as follows:
"The bill as reported establishes a program of effluent
limitations and standards, and section 510 clearly provides that
the States may set more restrictive standards should they so
desire. The proposed amendment is aimed at two so-called pollutants
-- radioactive materials and thermal discharges -- and seeks to
collaterally amend any statute enacted by the Congress relative to
them without any specific reference to the statutes that might be
affected. As to radioactive materials, the target of the amendment
is obvious. It seeks to reverse the decisions of the courts which
have held that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempted to the
Federal Government, acting through the Atomic Energy Commission,
the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate most radioactive materials.
Clearly, if such is the will of the House, it should be undertaken
only after a thorough examination of the impact of such a decision,
and it should be done directly by amending the statute involved --
the Atomic Energy Act -- not collaterally through this legislation.
If this amendment had been proposed as a piece of original
legislation, it would have been referred to the appropriate
Page 426 U. S. 20
committee for hearings and evaluation of all the pertinent
factors involved in such a decision. I could go on with the
explanation of those factors, but this is not the time nor the
place for such a consideration in the first instance. This bill is
not the appropriate vehicle for amending a major piece of
legislation, thoroughly considered in committee and by the
Congress, which established at the direction of the Congress a
thorough and pervasive regulatory program relative to radioactive
materials."
Id. at 556. Representative McCormack, a Member of the
House Committee on Public Works and Chairman of the House Science
and Astronautics Committee's Task Force on Energy Research and
Development, urged the amendment's defeat in similar terms. After
noting the inadvisability of "throwing away" the AEC's "meticulous
work" in the area of safety in favor of state regulation,
id. at 550, he concluded:
"[I]t is obvious from the report by the House Committee on
Public Works for this bill, and from the committee report from the
other body, that this bill does not impact directly upon the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954. This bill applies only to radioactive materials
not covered by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and, as such, the
amendment is not relevant to this bill at all."
Id. at 551. [
Footnote 16]
Respondents urge that the Wolff amendment was addressed only to
the question of the States' regulatory authority, and that its
defeat did not reflect any intent to foreclose regulation of
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials by the EPA. We do
not agree that
Page 426 U. S. 21
the House's consideration of the Wolff amendment leaves room for
EPA regulation. Several of the opponents of the amendment were
quite explicit in their reliance upon the House Committee Report's
statement that radioactive materials subject to AEA regulation were
excluded from the coverage of the FWPCA. [
Footnote 17] Neither Representative Wolff nor
Representative Frenzel took issue with that interpretation in the
course of the debate on their amendment, [
Footnote 18] and indeed it is arguable that their
amendment was premised on the assumption that source, byproduct,
and special nuclear materials were wholly beyond the scope of the
FWPCA. If these materials were covered by the Act -- that is, if
they were "pollutants" -- the amendment was wholly superfluous, for
the unamended provision that is now 33 U.S.C. § 1370 (1970 ed.,
Supp. IV) would permit the States to regulate their discharge. But
regardless of the underlying assumptions of the sponsors of the
Wolff amendment,
Page 426 U. S. 22
the interpretation respondents would place upon its defeat is
unacceptable. As respondents would have it, the House expressed an
intent to permit EPA regulation of the materials in question, but
to preclude state regulation of the same materials under the FWPCA.
That result could find no basis in the language of the Act. In our
view, then, the House's consideration and rejection of the Wolff
amendment offers additional support for the interpretation stated
in the House Committee Report that source, byproduct, and special
nuclear materials are beyond the reach of the FWPCA.
The House's rather explicit statement of intent to exclude
AEA-regulated materials from the FWPCA was unchallenged by the
Conference Committee, which simply retained the same reference to
"radioactive materials" contained in both the House and Senate
bills. S.Conf.Rep. No. 92-1236, p. 144 (1972), 1 Leg.Hist. 327.
Representative Harsha, a ranking member of the Conference
Committee, explained the import of the Conference Committee action
as follows:
"The conference report does not change the original intent as it
was made clear in the colloquy between Senators Muskie and Pastore
in the course of the debate in the other body. I also note that an
amendment to H.R. 11896 was offered on March 28, 1972, which would
have overturned the
Northern States Power against
Minnesota case."
"The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Holifield)
spoke in opposition to the amendment and pointed out the necessity
of not changing the careful division of authority between the
States and the Federal Government over nuclear materials and
facilities as enunciated in the
Northern States case. The
amendment was defeated by a 3-to-1 vote of the House. "
Page 426 U. S. 23
"I can say to the gentleman from Illinois that the managers in
no way detracted from the intent of the language in H.R. 11896. I
also note that the Committee on Public Works, in its report on H.R.
11896, stated on page 131 that the term 'pollutant,' as defined in
the bill, includes 'radioactive materials.' These materials are not
those encompassed in the definition of source, byproduct, or
special nuclear materials as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, and regulated pursuant to that act. 'Radioactive
materials' encompassed by this bill are those beyond the
jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission. Examples of
radioactive materials not covered by the Atomic Energy Act, and,
therefore, included within the term 'pollutant' are radium and
accelerator produced isotopes. This language adequately reflects
the intent of the managers of the conference report."
Id. at 226-227.
See also id. at 229 (remarks
of Rep. Jones). With no one expressing a different view of the
Conference action, the House proceeded to agree to the Conference
Report.
Id. at 276. [
Footnote 19]
V
If it was not clear at the outset, we think it abundantly clear
after a review of the legislative materials that reliance on the
"plain meaning" of the words "radioactive materials" contained in
the definition of "pollutant" in the FWPCA contributes little to
our understanding of
Page 426 U. S. 24
whether Congress intended the Act to encompass the regulation of
source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. To have included
these materials under the FWPCA would have marked a significant
alteration of the pervasive regulatory scheme embodied in the AEA.
Far from containing the clear indication of legislative intent that
we might expect before recognizing such a change in policy,
cf.
United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.
S. 164,
425 U. S.
168-169 (1976), the legislative history reflects, on
balance, an intention to preserve the preexisting regulatory plan.
[
Footnote 20]
Page 426 U. S. 25
We conclude, therefore, that the "pollutants" subject to
regulation under the FWPCA do not include source, byproduct, and
special nuclear materials, and that the EPA Administrator has acted
in accordance with his statutory mandate in declining to regulate
the discharge of such materials. The judgment of the Court of
Appeals is
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
[
Footnote 1]
Under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, 42
U.S.C. § 5801
et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), the licensing
and related regulatory functions of the AEC were transferred to the
NRC; the ERDA assumed responsibility for the operation of
Government nuclear research and production facilities. 42 U.S.C. §§
5841(f), 5842, 5814(c) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). We will refer
generally to the AEC to cover the NRC and ERDA after their
formation, except where the context requires specific designation
of the NRC or ERDA.
[
Footnote 2]
"The term 'source material' means (1) uranium, thorium, or any
other material which is determined by the Commission pursuant to
the provisions of section 2091 of this title to be source material;
or (2) ores containing one or more of the foregoing materials, in
such concentration as the Commission may by regulation determine
from time to time."
42 U.S.C. § 2014(z).
[
Footnote 3]
"The term 'special nuclear material' means (1) plutonium,
uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any
other material which the Commission, pursuant to the provisions of
section 2071 of this title, determines to be special nuclear
material, but does not include source material; or (2) any material
artificially enriched by any of the foregoing, but does not include
source material."
42 U.S.C. § 2014(aa).
[
Footnote 4]
"The term 'byproduct material' means any radioactive material
(except special nuclear material) yielded in or made radioactive by
exposure to the radiation incident to the process of producing or
utilizing special nuclear material."
42 U.S.C. § 2014(e).
[
Footnote 5]
The Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station is owned and
operated by an NRC licensee, and is accordingly bound by the AEC
(NRC) regulations. The Rocky Flats plant is a federal facility
operated for the ERDA by a private contractor to fabricate
plutonium into nuclear weapon parts. The ERDA is also responsible
for the operation of approximately 24 other facilities that
discharge low levels of source, byproduct, and special nuclear
materials. All of these facilities are required to conform to the
same effluent standards established by the NRC for commercial
facilities. Executive Order No. 11752, § 4(a)(6), 3 CFR, p. 384
(1974).
[
Footnote 6]
The permit program of Colorado, where this case originated, was
approved by the EPA on April 8, 1975. 40 Fed.Reg. 16713.
[
Footnote 7]
"The term 'pollutant' means dredged spoil, solid waste,
incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat,
wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into
water. This term does not mean (A) 'sewage from vessels' within the
meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (b) water, gas, or other
material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of
oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas
production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to
facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by
authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such
State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in
the degradation of ground or surface water resources."
33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
[
Footnote 8]
Respondents suggest that the EPA's original interpretation of
the term "radioactive materials" was to the contrary. They note
that the initial public notice on the Fort St. Vrain permit
application -- published before the EPA regulations interpreting
the Act to exclude coverage of AEA-regulated radioactive materials
-- contemplated the imposition of limitations on the discharge of
"liquid radioactive wastes." Since we do not depend upon the EPA
interpretation of the Act in reaching our conclusion, it is
unnecessary to consider whether any alleged inconsistencies in the
EPA's position warrant our treating it with less deference than
would otherwise be the case.
See, e.g., Train v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, 421 U. S. 60,
421 U. S. 87
(1975);
Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S.
1,
380 U. S. 16-18
(1965).
[
Footnote 9]
See n 7,
supra.
[
Footnote 10]
Citations to "Leg.Hist." refer to a two-volume Committee print
for the Senate Committee on Public Works, A Legislative History of
the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93d Cong., 1st
Sess. (1973).
[
Footnote 11]
The Bureau of Radiological Health was transferred to the EPA
from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare pursuant to §
2(a)(3)(ii)(C) of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, which
established the EPA. 84 Stat. 2087, 5 U.S.C.App. p. 610.
[
Footnote 12]
The AEA, as amended in 1959, 73 Stat. 688, 42 U.S.C. § 2021,
does permit the States to assume, pursuant to agreements with the
AEC, a limited role in regulating source and byproduct materials,
and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form
a critical mass. But state regulatory programs must be compatible
with the AEC's regulatory program, § 2021(d)(2), and States are
precluded from playing any role in several significant areas of
regulation -- including the setting of limitations on radioactive
discharges from nuclear power plants. § 2021(c)(1);
Northern
States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F.2d 1143, 1149 n. 6 (CA8
1971).
[
Footnote 13]
Section 101(b) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b) (1970 ed.,
Supp. IV), provides generally:
"It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to
prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development
and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of
land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in
the exercise of his authority under this chapter. It is further the
policy of the Congress to support and aid research relating to the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution and to provide
Federal technical services and financial aid to State and
interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution."
[
Footnote 14]
Respondents contend that a discussion between Senator Buckley
and Senator Muskie on the Senate floor is indicative of an intent
to permit the EPA to regulate the discharge of AEA-regulated
radioactive materials. Senator Buckley expressed concern about §
511(c)(2)(b) of the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. § 1371(c)(2)(b) (1970 ed.,
Supp. IV), which precludes agencies other than EPA from
"impos[ing], as a condition precedent to the issuance of any
license or permit, any effluent limitation other than any such
limitation established pursuant to this chapter." Referring to
recent action by the AEC to control thermal pollution of the Hudson
River, Senator Buckley asked Senator Muskie whether § 511(c)(2)(B)
would bar AEC decisions "of this type" setting tougher limitations
than those prescribed by the EPA. Senator Muskie's response was
that the AEC would be required to abide by EPA effluent limitation
controls "with respect to the subject matter which the Senator has
raised." 1 Leg.Hist 198. The subject matter raised was thermal
pollution, and we do not interpret Senator Muskie's response as
suggesting that a similar conclusion would be reached with respect
to pollution by AEA-regulated radioactive materials.
[
Footnote 15]
See also 1 Leg.Hist. 552 (remarks of Rep. Hungate), 555
(remarks of Rep. McClory).
[
Footnote 16]
See also id. at 546-547 (remarks of Rep. Holifield);
553 (remarks of Rep. Hosmer); 553 (remarks of Rep. Clausen); 557
(remarks of Rep. Harsha).
[
Footnote 17]
In addition to the comments of Representatives Stanton and
McCormack, quoted above,
see id. at 587-588 (remarks of
Reps. Holifield, Jones, Harsha, and Hosmer).
[
Footnote 18]
The statements of Representatives Wolff and Frenzel referred to
above suggest that they recognized the absence of any role for the
EPA in regulating the materials in question. In explaining the need
to vest regulatory power in the States, they both referred to the
inadequacy of regulation by the AEC, without any mention of the
prospect of regulation by the EPA.
It should not escape mention that one supporter of the Wolff
amendment, Representative McClory, urged its adoption "in order to
make eminently clear that we are controlling nuclear . . .
pollution in this bill."
Id. at 555. To the extent that
this statement suggested that the amendment merely clarified what
the House bill already provided, it is a far less persuasive
indicator of legislative intent than the contrary statements by the
successful opponents of the amendment. Similarly, Representative
Frenzel's statement the day after the Wolff amendment was defeated
that the FWPCA applied to AEA-regulated radioactive materials, 1
Leg.Hist. 745-746, is not entitled to great weight.
[
Footnote 19]
We also note that, in the course of its consideration of the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, which created the
NRC and ERDA, the House rejected an amendment that would have
transferred from those agencies to the EPA the authority to set
emission standards for source, byproduct, and special nuclear
materials. 119 Cong.Rec. 42615-42616 (1973).
[
Footnote 20]
It does not follow, however, that the EPA has no role to play in
protecting the environment from excessive radiation attributable to
AEA-regulated materials. The EPA was established by Reorganization
Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086, 5 U.S.C.App. p. 609. Among the
functions transferred to the EPA under the plan were:
"The functions of the Atomic Energy Commission under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, . . . [that] consist of
establishing generally applicable environmental standards for the
protection of the general environment from radioactive material. As
used herein, standards mean limits on radiation exposures or
levels, or concentrations or quantities of radioactive material, in
the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under
the control of persons possessing or using radioactive
material."
§ 2(a)(6), 84 Stat. 2088, 5 U.S.C.App. p. 610. In his message
accompanying the reorganization plan, President Nixon emphasized
that the AEC was to "retain responsibility for the implementation
and enforcement of radiation standards through its licensing
authority." 5 U.S.C.App. p. 612. Petitioners' brief, expressing the
views of the EPA, NRC, and ERDA, explains the resultant division of
authority as follows:
"EPA was to set generally applicable radiation standards,
limiting the total amount of permissible radiation in the
environment from major categories of sources, while the AEC was to
prescribe the limitations applicable to discharges of licensed
materials from particular sources which contribute to the
total."
Brief for Petitioners 52-53 (citations omitted).
See
AEC-EPA Memoranda of Understanding, 38 Fed.Reg. 24936, 32965
(1973).
See also Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed
Standards for Environmental Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power
Operations, 40 Fed.Reg. 23419 (1975).