Preliminary statewide collection lists

Submitted By

28 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: McKinley MacDoran

8/19/26 @ 11:47 PM

Hello,
Continued:
Reusable and resealable packaging may also include magnets which can be recyclable and reusable. As magnetic metal.

A section for products and or packaging already made from recycled materials will and should include percentages ...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: McKinley MacDoran

8/19/26 @ 10:24 PM

Hello,
Continued from 1,2,3 previous submissions.
If the PRO can please design plastic packaging bags to be reusable and resealable plastic bags instead of one-time vacuum sealed packaging.
Examples being cereal plastic packaging to be made into res...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Avery Makrakis

8/19/26 @ 10:10 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: McKinley MacDoran

8/19/26 @ 8:19 PM

Hello,
Continued from submissions 1 and 2.
Solid waste for the Recycling Reform Act and these materials and components are solid and or semi-solid at room temperature.
Including household items and products and packaging such as
Tape,
Adhesives,
Du...↓

No attachments

Comment From: McKinley MacDoran

8/19/26 @ 7:24 PM

Hello,
Continued: from submission 1 on 08/19/2026
To detail the meaning on the "household items" may include
Metals including Brass.
Porcelain, marble,
Glass and crystal marbles,
Crystals,
Concrete,
Rocks,
Diamonds,
Granite,
Stone,
Asphalt,
G...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Household & Commercial Product... (Molly Blessing)

8/19/26 @ 7:01 PM

Please find attached comments from the Household & Commercial Products Association on Washington's preliminary statewide collection lists. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Please feel free to reach out with any questions.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Lautenbach Recycling (Carolyn Moulton)

8/19/26 @ 6:39 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Association of Plastic Recycle... (Kate Bailey)

8/19/26 @ 5:37 PM

Please see comment letter attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Association of Washington Citi... (Shannon McClelland)

8/19/26 @ 5:27 PM

Thank you for what appears to be a thorough review of materials for inclusion on the statewide recycling list. We wanted to address two issues - the first criteria of Statewide Collection Access and the limited list of materials on the alternative co...↓llection list.

1. Statewide Collection Access Criteria
Although the agency has discretion under RCW 70A.208.090 to add different criteria or factors and to disregard the statutory list entirely, I think it's instructive to note that whether a material is broadly collected under the current system was not chosen by the Legislature in the enumerated list of 12 criteria or factors. This was not an oversight. The current system creates inequity because it relies on whether the local rate base - and the local service provider - can sustain a list of materials beyond the traditional - mixed paper, cardboard, metal cans, plastic bottle and jugs, and for some, glass bottles and jars. This list has nothing to do with what types of packaging are put on the market, compatibility with the collection or processing system, or the environmental impact of the packaging.

In passing the Recycling Reform Act, the Legislature acknowledged the limits to the current system and added a force multiplier - producers. We are asking the agency to see beyond what has been collected in the past, and to give little, if any, weight to whether an item is collected now or how broadly. That is the role of the Needs Assessment. Given that the RRA is going to expand services dramatically across the state, using a metric that includes only which jurisdictions have curbside service now inherently minimizes the potential recovery of a material - indicating something is "challenging" simply because of the limitations of the current system.

2. Alternative Collection List
We were surprised at how limited this list was. Did the agency consider widely collected material through existing take back programs or only government-funded programs? For example, black plastic plant pots. These are accepted by, at least, Home Depot and Lowe's statewide, by our understanding, and likely locally owned nurseries, as well. What about porch pick-up services, like Ridwell? Were those program materials considered and under what category? Are those considered curbside or alternative collection?

Finally, it would very helpful to add a description for each material that a lay person would recognize. For example, clamshells for berries.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

No attachments

Comment From: Rod Whittaker

8/19/26 @ 4:31 PM

Attached comments for WRRA.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Snohomish County Solid Waste (Jon Greninger)

8/19/26 @ 2:32 PM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft statewide materials lists for the Recycling Reform Act. Snohomish County Solid Waste supports improved recycling outcomes statewide and would like to highlight several operational considerations t...↓hat are essential for successful implementation of the proposed requirements.
First, Snohomish County Solid Waste continues to face facility processing capacity and physical space constraints at our transfer stations and drop boxes. Our recycling areas already operate within tight footprints and, if these sites are required to collect all materials on the residential recycling list, we would not be able to add new collection bins without compromising the ease of use, traffic flow, and level of service that customers currently experience.
Additional clarity on collection methods, specifically whether listed materials must be collected commingled or source-separated. Maintaining local flexibility is essential for our operations. Certain materials, such as glass, are better collected separately to prevent breakage and maintain staff safety, whereas plastics can be difficult for residents to distinguish by resin type and are better suited for commingled collection. We also prefer to continue collecting aluminum, steel, and tin cans in dedicated bins to ensure this high value commodity stream remains uncontaminated. Providing local flexibility for collection methods will help alleviate space limitations and reduce the strain on staff resources.
It would further be helpful to understand how the Recycling Reform Act will align with other major statewide initiatives, both proposed and currently underway, including the Recycling Refund Program study and the Organics Management Law. Introducing multiple large systems at the same time risks creating conflicting requirements, duplicative material categories, and operational strain. Alignment among these programs is critical to ensure new mandates do not unintentionally undermine the recycling systems built under the Recycling Reform Act or divert resources needed for successful implementation.
We also noted inconsistencies between the draft statewide lists and Ecology's Designated Recycling List contained in the workbook. For example, the workbook recommends against curbside recycling of aseptic and gable top cartons, paper and plastic cups, glass, and polycoated fiber food packaging, yet these items appear on the preliminary statewide list. These differences should be resolved to give jurisdictions clear, consistent direction and to ensure that collection requirements align with current recycling markets and the practical recyclability of these materials.
Finally, we request continued flexibility in determining which materials are appropriate for collection at county-operated solid waste facilities. Because residential curbside recycling service is widely available throughout Snohomish County, it is neither necessary nor operationally practical for our transfer stations and drop boxes to mirror the full residential curbside list. Allowing solid waste facilities to select which recyclable commodities they can safely and effectively manage will help ensure that collection practices remain aligned with site-specific space limitations, equipment capabilities, and operational demands. Maintaining this flexibility will enable us to continue providing efficient, safe, and accessible services while supporting overall countywide recycling performance.
Snohomish County Solid Waste looks forward to ongoing collaboration and remains ready to contribute operational data, practical experience, and local insights to support the development of workable, effective statewide recycling solutions.

No attachments

Comment From: Can Manufacturers Institute (Michael Smaha)

8/19/26 @ 2:27 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: The Closed Loop Partners Cente... (Kate Daly)

8/19/26 @ 12:59 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: McKinley MacDoran

8/19/26 @ 12:57 PM

Hello,
Please allow for the lists to be expansive and flexible for the Preliminary Statewide Collection Lists.
Including all the plastic numbering coded recyclables will allow Service Providers to be reimbursed for recycling efforts.
The Prelimina...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Foodservice Packaging Institut... (Ashley Elzinga)

8/19/26 @ 12:15 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Port of Seattle | SEA Airport (Jeremy Webb)

8/19/26 @ 11:33 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Clark County Solid Waste and R... (Matt Bucy)

8/19/26 @ 9:45 AM

Please see attached letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Carton Council (Brendon Holland)

8/19/26 @ 7:43 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the preliminary statewide collection lists. Our full comments are attached. We look forward to future communication and collaboration.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Kirkland (Jenna McInnis)

8/18/26 @ 3:43 PM

We support the development of these lists and the work that went into forming these. We are looking forward to the consistency and expanded recycling services across WA state.

Overall, these statewide lists look good! Some thoughts:

Paper

Is s...↓

No attachments

Comment From: City of Pateros (Jord Wilson)

8/18/26 @ 1:37 PM

We need a safe place to recycle batteries.

No attachments

Comment From: Pierce County Solid Waste (Chris Brown)

8/18/26 @ 1:23 PM

Public Comment Statement

Pierce County appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the preliminary list of accepted materials under the Recycling Reform Act (RRA). We understand that in order for any material to be collected statewide by the PRO...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Imperial Dade (Kevin McGrath)

8/18/26 @ 11:27 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: King County Solid Waste Divisi... (Eugenia Jain)

8/18/26 @ 9:50 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Yakima (Michael Slack)

8/17/26 @ 2:11 PM

The city of Yakima is currently servicing around 23% of the total city residence but we have never collected Food Waste, and this will be a new service. (Please keep in mind that once the mandatory yard wase service goes into effect the city will nee...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marie A Wellock

8/13/26 @ 4:34 PM

I think that the lists provided are very comprehensive. I still think that this only treats the symptoms and not the cause. There needs to be a change in how manufacturers use packaging, and creating new rules requiring sustainable or truly recyclabl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: EPS Industry Alliance (Walter Reiter)

8/12/26 @ 4:31 PM

Please see attached comments and annex to preliminary statewide collection list.