Intent of Hanford initiative debated

YAKIMA – The Washington Supreme Court must decide how a Hanford waste initiative should be interpreted before a federal court can rule on the constitutionality of the measure, state lawyers told a federal judge Thursday.

It was the latest step in the dispute over Initiative 297, approved by state voters last fall. The measure bars the U.S. Department of Energy from sending any out-of-state nuclear waste to the Hanford nuclear site until all existing waste there is cleaned up.

The federal government has filed suit in federal court seeking to overturn the measure on grounds that it violates federal laws governing nuclear waste and interstate commerce, among other things.

“The state strongly believes it’s the responsibility of the state court to have the first stab at determining the voters’ intent with the statute,” state Assistant Attorney General Laura Watson argued in a telephone conference call with U.S. District Judge Alan McDonald.

But the intent of voters, and the people who drafted the initiative, was clear, said Kenneth Amaditz, a federal Justice Department lawyer.

“They regularly sold this to the public as an effort to prevent Hanford from becoming a radioactive waste dump,” he said.

The state has no authority over radioactive waste with regards to health and safety, he said, and questions about federal law belong before a federal court. Sending the case to the state Supreme Court would be an unnecessary diversion that will only delay Hanford cleanup, Amaditz said.

Specifically, the state wants clarification on the definition of “mixed waste” under state law and how waste in unlined trenches should be characterized.

The state also questions whether the initiative bars movement of waste already on the site or disposal of sealed nuclear reactor vessels from retired U.S. Navy submarines. In the event that the federal judge finds only part of the initiative constitutional, the state also wants the state Supreme Court to decide if the entire measure would be nullified.

McDonald gave no indication of when he might rule. However, he said it was difficult to see how either side would be prejudiced by getting the benefit of the Supreme Court’s input.

“At least we wouldn’t have to be sitting here arguing about interpretation,” he said.

Waste shipments to the site already had been halted under another lawsuit. The initiative has not been enforced pending resolution of the lawsuit.