Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.450 (2026)

Liability of operators for nuclear incidents—Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise the following definitions apply throughout RCW 4.24.460:
(1) "Nuclear incident" means any occurrence within this state causing, within or without this state, bodily injury, sickness, disease or death; loss or damage to property; or loss of use of property arising out of the resultant radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of radioactive wastes being stored in or being transported to or from a waste repository in this state.
(2) "Operator" means the entity or entities that have been given responsibility for constructing, operating, or monitoring waste repositories or transporting radioactive waste and may include the United States and its federal agencies.
(3) "Radioactive waste" includes, but is not limited to, high-level radioactive waste, low-level radioactive waste, transuranic radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and radioactive defense waste. It does not include de minimis radioactive waste.
(4) "Spent nuclear fuel" means fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing.
(5) "Waste repository" means any system which is intended or may be used for the disposal or storage of radioactive waste including permanent disposal systems, interim storage systems, monitored retrievable storage systems, defense waste storage systems, test and evaluation facilities, or similar systems.
[ 1985 c 275 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1991–1991 · leading case: In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 780 F. Supp. 1551 (E.D. Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 780 F. Supp. 1551 (E.D. Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “The plaintiffs argue, however, that what they actually intended by invocation of the term “negligence per se” was instead reliance upon RCW 4.24.450 and 4.24.460 (1988), and specifically RCW 4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.