Opinion ID: 2567145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Does RCW 70.105E.060(1)(a)(ii), which requires development of an inventory of hazardous substances potentially disposed to unlined trenches based on actual characterization of such substances, require the physical inspection of each and every material disposed?

Text: ¶ 22 The term actual characterization is found in RCW 70.105E.060(1)(a)(ii), which states as follows: The department, within sixty days after [the effective date of this act], shall order any site owner or operator utilizing landfills or burial grounds containing unlined soil trenches in which mixed wastes are reasonably believed by the department to have been disposed to: . . . . (ii) Initiate an investigation to provide the department with an inventory based on actual characterization of all hazardous substances potentially disposed in unlined trenches. (Emphasis added.) There is no statutory definition of the terms actual, characterization, or actual characterization contained in the CPA or any other relevant statute. Where a term is undefined it will be given its plain and ordinary meaning. See Cowiche Canyon Conservancy, 118 Wash.2d at 813, 828 P.2d 549. The dictionary defines actual as existing in fact or reality. WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 22 (2002). [C]haracterization is defined as the act, process, or result of characterizing, which is, in turn, defined under its variant characterize as to describe the essential character or quality of. Id. at 376. The parties quarrel over the consequences of these dictionary definitions. Ecology argues that compliance will require physical testing in part but not completely. Ecology has historically used some degree of process knowledge to determine the contents of disposed materials. [6] Ecology posits compliance with the actual characterization requirement through the continued use of process knowledge. The United States argues that actual characterization can only mean physical testing because the word actual would be superfluous if process knowledge were an available substitute. If both process knowledge and direct testing could be used, the United States reasons, the CPA would employ only the term characterization. ¶ 23 Whether actual characterization requires, as an epistemological matter, physical inspection of every material or allows for the use of prior record keeping is simply not clear. At the very least, the dictionary definitions do not appear to preclude Ecology's use of process knowledge. Thus, two or more reasonable interpretations are possible and the terms are ambiguous. See Agrilink, 153 Wash.2d at 396, 103 P.3d 1226. Where statutory language is ambiguous, additional rules of statutory construction become helpful. For instance, we generally give great weight to Ecology's interpretation of laws it administers. See Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 594, 90 P.3d 659 (2004). In this case, Ecology is ultimately responsible for developing administrative rules for compliance with the CPA. Unfortunately, the federal litigation intervened before Ecology had an opportunity to make those determinations with regard to actual characterization. We are tasked only with determining whether, as a matter of law, actual characterization necessarily requires physical inspection of each and every material disposed. Because a reasonable alternative construction is available, and that construction is proposed by the agency responsible for enforcing the CPA, the answer to this question is, no.