sulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of Title 33 [or source, special nuclear, or byproduct material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 State. 923).]. (B) The term "solid waste" does not include

(i) source, special nuclear, or by-product materials as defined in section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014), unless such materials are a part of any mixture or combination, if the other constituent part of such mixture or combination is a solid waste, within the meaning of subparagraph (A); or

(ii) wastes at the time they are emplaced at a repository, as defined in section 2(18) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(18)).

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH

I support S. 1085 because of my belief that this bill provides a strong foundation for providing independent safety review and oversight of Department of Energy nuclear facilities. The original bill was a good starting point. After four Committee hearings detailing many of the safety and environmental hazards which exist at DOE nuclear facilities, I am convinced that independent outside oversight is needed. We owe it to the American people that government facilities meet high standards of reactor and environmental safety and pose no threat to the American public. I believe the legislation passed by this Committee is a step in that direction.

A critical element of maintaining safe facilities is maintaining a sound system of checks and reviews. The DOE Office of Environmental, Safety, and Health is a strong component of this system. But even as Secretary Herrington has acknowledged, some outside oversight is necessary to ensure the confidence of the American people.

I agreed to co-sponsor S. 1085, as reported, after the Committee adopted the two amendments which I offered. While I agree that independent oversight is needed in this particular instance, I am in general very concerned about unnecessarily creating new government entities and adding to the government bureaucracy.

The first amendment provides a six-year sunset for the Nuclear Safety Board and requires the Board to provide Congress with a report after five years detailing the Board's effectiveness in meeting the objectives established by the Congress.

I proposed this amendment because I felt it important that the Congress be required to review the Board's activities after a certain period, particularly since it is a new entity. This review will enable the Congress to determine the effectiveness of the Board and determine whether any modifications in its structure or mission should be made. The original language contained authorizations for six years, so the Congress would have to reauthorize it after that period. This amendment simply reinforces that and assures that a complete review will be undertaken.

The second amendment I offered places a ceiling of 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff personnel on the new Board. The Committee agreed that 100 FTE staff personnel would be adequate to meet the needs of the Board. Equally important, according to the hearing record, the Board should make use of other agencies' staff, such as DOE's Environmental, Safety, and Health personnel, for certain projects. In addition, resources such as the National Academy of Sciences may be used to help with Board matters.

The adoption of these amendments helped to meet my conce about limiting the growth of the federal bureaucracy. The Bo has been created to serve a very important function-one tha wholly support.

WILLIAM V. ROTH