Opinion ID: 1458112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: questions certified to the washington state supreme court

Text: The United States and Fluor moved for summary judgment and TRIDEC moved for partial summary judgment. In opposing the United States' motion, the State argued that many of the claims could be narrowed or eliminated through statutory interpretation. See Hoffman, 116 P.3d at 1001. The parties agreed that if the CPA covered only material that could be regulated under state law or the RCRA, then the statute was not preempted by federal law. The district court granted the State's motion to certify five questions to the Washington Supreme Court, including the following question and its subparts that are directly relevant to this appeal: (1) What materials are encompassed within the definition of mixed waste set forth in Section 3(9) of the CPA [RCW 70.105E.030(9)]? (a) Specifically, does the definition of mixed waste encompass materials that consist solely of radioactive source, special nuclear, or byproduct materials and, if so, under what circumstances does the CPA apply to such materials? (b) Specifically, does the definition of mixed waste encompass materials that are mixtures of radioactive source, special nuclear, or byproduct materials and other hazardous substances that do no[t] designate as dangerous waste under state laws? If so, under what circumstances does the CPA apply to such materials? (c) Specifically, does the definition of mixed waste encompass materials that are not solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and, if so, under what circumstances does the CPA apply to such materials? (d) In light of the Court's answers to subparts (a) through (c), above, does the definition of mixed waste expand the scope of materials regulated as mixed waste under the Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA) and RCRA? Id. at 1001-02. The Washington Supreme Court accepted certification and, among others, answered Question 1. The court began its analysis by tracing the definition of mixed waste, as used in the CPA, through its cross-references to other federal and state statutes. See id. at 1003-04. Under the CPA, mixed waste is defined as: [A]ny hazardous substance or dangerous or extremely hazardous waste that contains both a non-radioactive hazardous component and a radioactive component, including any such substances that have been released to the environment, or pose a threat of future release, in a manner that may expose persons or the environment to either the nonradioactive or radioactive hazardous substances. RCW 70.105E.030(9). The court observed that the CPA's definition of mixed waste incorporated the term hazardous substance, which is, in turn, defined as having the same meaning as the term is defined in [the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), RCW 70.105D.020]. [6] Hoffman, 116 P.3d at 1003. The MTCA is `designed to deal both with the remediation of former environmental hazards and to prevent environmental hazards in the future,' and makes a property owner `strictly liable for the remediation of environmental hazards caused by hazardous substances it released[or were released] on its property.' Goodstein v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 509 F.3d 1042, 1046 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007) (quoting Olds-Olympic, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 129 Wash.2d 464, 918 P.2d 923, 927 (1996)). The MTCA's definition of hazardous substance, in turn, cross-references the definition of hazardous substance in the HWMA, RCW 70.105D.020(7)(b). [7] Hoffman, 116 P.3d at 1003. As to Question 1(a), the parties agreed that the CPA does not address materials that are solely of radioactive source, special nuclear, or byproduct materials. Id. In response to Question 1(b), the court concluded that the CPA's definition of mixed waste includes material that does not designate as dangerous waste under the MTCA and the HWMA. Id. at 1005. Waste must meet certain threshold quantity requirements of certain materials before it will designate as dangerous waste, id. at 1004; WAC 173-303-090(8)(a)-(c), but a hazardous substance, as defined by the HWMA, has no threshold requirement. Hoffman, 116 P.3d at 1004; RCW 70.105.010(14). Because the HWMA's definition of hazardous substance is incorporated into the CPA's definition of mixed waste, mixed waste can include materials that will not designate as dangerous waste because those materials do not meet the threshold quantity requirement. With respect to Question 1(c), the court concluded that the CPA's definition of mixed waste included materials that were not solid waste under the RCRA. Hoffman, 116 P.3d at 1006. In light of its analysis of questions 1(a)-(c), the Washington Supreme Court held that the CPA does expand the scope of materials currently subject to regulation as mixed waste beyond the HWMA and the RCRA. Id. at 1006 (responding to Question 1(d)).