WA leads SCOTUS brief supporting responsible and informed hazardous waste disposal

Attorney General Nick Brown led a coalition of 11 attorneys general in an amicus brief filed today before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the federal government must make informed decisions about how to store, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste.

The case, Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guåhan, concerns whether the federal government needs to conduct environmental impact reviews of major projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before it seeks a permit to dispose of hazardous waste. The brief argues that NEPA reviews in conjunction with hazardous waste disposal are valuable for Washington. Specifically, these reviews have informed the state's own permitting decisions at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, reducing environmental impacts from Hanford's cleanup.

"Hazardous waste sites like Hanford remind us of the federal government's past failures and ongoing responsibility in addressing toxic threats to our communities," said Brown. "We must maintain the safeguards that give Washingtonians a voice in federal decisions that impact us and our environment."

In this case, the court was asked to decide whether the Air Force can destroy munitions on a beach in Guam without doing an environmental impact review under NEPA. The federal government argues that it does not need to do a NEPA review because it already completed a permit application under a different federal law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, the information provided in permit application is different from a NEPA review, occurs at a different stage in the process, and considers a narrower set of environmental concerns.

NEPA requires the federal government to analyze environmental impacts before it takes an action requiring a permit to dispose of hazardous waste, while the RCRA permit process requires states to evaluate only the government's chosen waste disposal action. NEPA also requires public input before the federal government's decision is made, ensuring that communities know about the action the government is planning and have input into that decision. NEPA analysis requires the federal government to study alternatives that could be less harmful to the environment, whereas RCRA permits do not require studying alternatives.

The Hanford cleanup is one example of how NEPA reviews have helped Washingtonians. For decades governors, lawmakers, attorneys general, Tribes, and the Tri-Cities community have worked to hold the federal government accountable for the Hanford cleanup. The NEPA process gives these parties information they can use to advocate and influence decisions. In one case, this analysis influenced where the federal government sited a landfill on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, reducing environmental impacts. This outcome was only possible because of information generated through NEPA reviews. Without NEPA reviews, states and communities would be left in the dark about crucial decisions that impact them.

The brief was joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon.

Read the brief.

-30-

Washington's Attorney General serves the people and the state of Washington. As the state's largest law firm, the Attorney General's Office provides legal representation to every state agency, board, and commission in Washington. Additionally, the Office serves the people directly by enforcing consumer protection, civil rights, and environmental protection laws. The Office also prosecutes elder abuse, Medicaid fraud, and handles sexually violent predator cases in 38 of Washington's 39 counties. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.

Media Contact:

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (360) 753-2727

General contacts: Click here

Media Resource Guide & Attorney General's Office FAQ