United States v. Hoffman

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court answered certified questions concerning Washington's Cleanup Priority Act, Initiative Measure No. 297, and its regulation of mixed radioactive and hazardous waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation. The court held that the Act's definition of mixed waste may encompass materials that do not designate as dangerous waste under state law or qualify as solid waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and that the Act does not prohibit intrasite waste transfers. It also construed the naval-facility exemption, rejected a requirement for physical inspection of every disposed material, and declined to decide severability issues that were hypothetical and speculative.

Holdings

1. Solely radioactive source, special nuclear, or byproduct materials do not qualify as mixed waste under the CPA because the statutory definition requires both a nonradioactive component and a radioactive component.
2. The CPA includes mixed materials that qualify as hazardous substances under RCW 70.105.010(14) even if they do not designate as dangerous waste under the HWMA because the concentration of dangerous material is insufficient.
3. The CPA includes materials that do not qualify as RCRA solid waste because they were not discarded, abandoned, recycled, or inherently wastelike, when those materials fall within the hazardous-substance categories incorporated by RCW 70.105D.020(7)(b)-(d).
4. The CPA expands the scope of materials regulated as mixed waste beyond the HWMA and RCRA by reaching certain materials that do not designate as dangerous waste and certain materials that are not RCRA solid waste; it does not reach purely radioactive materials.
5. The operation of the CPA does not prevent the intrasite transfer of waste among units at a site or facility.
6. The exemption in RCW 70.105E.080 is limited to the materials and activities specifically listed, including sealed nuclear reactor vessels and compartments, and does not extend to other materials that qualify as hazardous substances under the CPA's mixed-waste definition.
7. The requirement to create an inventory based on actual characterization does not, as a matter of law, necessarily require physical inspection of each and every material disposed in unlined trenches; reasonable use of process knowledge is not precluded.
8. The absence of a severability clause does not necessarily preclude severability of constitutional portions of the CPA; however, the court declined to decide whether particular provisions would be severable because that question was hypothetical and speculative.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the CPA's definition of mixed waste includes solely radioactive materials.
2. Whether the CPA's definition of mixed waste includes mixtures containing radioactive materials and hazardous substances that do not designate as dangerous waste under Washington law.
3. Whether the CPA's definition of mixed waste includes materials that are not solid wastes under RCRA.
4. Whether the CPA expands the scope of materials regulated as mixed waste beyond the HWMA and RCRA.
5. Whether the CPA prevents intrasite transfers of waste among units at a site or facility.
6. Whether the CPA's naval-facility exemption extends beyond sealed nuclear reactor vessels or compartments and related specifically identified activities.
7. Whether the requirement for an inventory based on actual characterization requires physical inspection of every material disposed in unlined trenches.
8. Whether the absence of a severability clause necessarily precludes severability if other provisions of the CPA are unconstitutional.

Disposition

other