Organic Materials Management Rulemaking, Chapter 173-350 WAC

Submitted By

77 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Jay Gordon

8/13/26 @ 11:48 PM

see attached. THanks. WJG

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Winton MFG Compost Works (Robbette Schmit)

8/13/26 @ 10:14 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Alex Truelove

8/13/26 @ 9:41 PM

Please find our comments in the attached file, thank you.

The Biodegradable Products Institute

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: CJ Biomaterials (Leah Ford)

8/13/26 @ 8:42 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Zero Waste Washington (Heather Trim)

8/13/26 @ 8:17 PM

Please see attached

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Amy Ockerlander on behalf of R... (Rebecca Singer)

8/13/26 @ 7:15 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Public Health Seattle & King C... (Fanny Silverio Gonzalez)

8/13/26 @ 7:14 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Julio Cortes

8/13/26 @ 6:37 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: American Biogas Council (Jonathan Harding )

8/13/26 @ 6:24 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Coalition for Renewable Natura... (Yanni Psareas)

8/13/26 @ 5:51 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Cedar Grove (Jay Blazey)

8/13/26 @ 5:26 PM

Hello,
The comment letter is attached.
Thank you,
Jay

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Snohomish County Health Depart... (Snohomish Department)

8/13/26 @ 4:40 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Repurpose (Lauren Gropper)

8/13/26 @ 3:16 PM

Repurpose is writing to express our comments to the Washington Department of Ecology in order to revise its proposed regulations as they will undermine the state's longstanding leadership in organic-waste diversion and conflict with the goals of exis...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lautenbach Recycling (Carolyn Moulton)

8/13/26 @ 2:57 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Food Industry Assoc... (Molly Pfaffenroth)

8/13/26 @ 2:56 PM

August 13, 2026

Department of Ecology organicsrule@ecy.wa.gov

RE: Rule Amendment Changes – Chapter 173-350 WAC – Organics Management Rulemaking

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the organics management rulemaking. The Washington...↓ Food Industry Association represents independent grocery stores, convenience stores, and their suppliers across Washington state. Our members support the state's organic waste diversion goals because keeping food scraps and other organic material out of landfills reduces methane emissions, encourages food donation and source reduction, and supports better environmental outcomes. We also support efforts to reduce packaging contamination in compost and soil amendments.

We are pleased that the latest draft rules do not add costly and time-consuming new restrictions to commercial facilities, which would require our stores to source separate and depackage in-house. We also appreciate the ability to utilize regulated depackaging facilities. These facilities remove non-recyclable packaging and other incidental contaminants before organic material is composted, digested, or otherwise processed. The alternative proposal would shift much of that work to individual stores.

Our stores should not be required to manually remove packaging by de-sleeving cucumbers, emptying egg cartons, opening fruit cups, and dumping food from cereal boxes. This would require additional employees, training, equipment, and stockroom procedures to maintain food safety compliance. Our stores operate on thin profit margins of 1%, meaning these costs could lead to higher prices, reduced spending elsewhere, or a return to landfilling unsold food when manual depackaging is too expensive.

Raising the contamination limit to 5% to allow processors to accept substantially more plastic and other non-organic material without pre-processing is the right step to ensure that commercial generators have options beyond depackaging. Grocers use several methods to manage unsold food, including food donation, composting, anaerobic digestion, animal feed, and source reduction. State policy should encourage the best environmental outcomes rather than favoring a particular waste management pathway or outdated processing methods.

Washington should finalize Ecology's original diversion and contamination proposals, maintain strong standards for incoming and finished materials, and hold processors accountable for removing packaging and contaminants. The state can protect soil quality and keep organic material out of landfills without imposing costly manual processing requirements on stores or weakening environmental safeguards.

Sincerely,

Molly Pfaffenroth
Government Affairs Director
Washington Food Industry Association

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Refuse & Recycling ... (India Brine)

8/13/26 @ 2:56 PM

Attachments:

Download

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

8/13/26 @ 2:17 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Sanitary Service Company (Ted Carlson)

8/13/26 @ 2:10 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jeffrey Gage

8/13/26 @ 2:05 PM

Under 173-350-025(2)(b)(vii)it states "Equal to or less than 32 gallons where manual handling is practiced." Most reusable containers for Organic waste range from 60 to 90 gallons with wheeled carts. these have been proven to be manageable by all acc...↓ounts unless overloaded by user. I request this be changed to allow or include the 60 and 90 gallon capacity wheeled versions of reusable containers.
Under WAC 173-350-215(6)(a)(iv) it states we need to provide a representative sample collection method but it does not describe what test method is needed to be used to measure or determine the amount of the level of physical contaminates by volume, making this section a futile requirement. Sampling methods must consider the testing procedure to be used. As a facility permitting consultant, I do not know how I can or any others can address this section with any level of professional competence without a test method being determined.
Under WAC 173-350-215(6)(a)(ix) it states that "Operator training to include required reading of the approved plan of operation for employees with responsibilities for compliance with this section" So the only training or competency requirement in this new section for the persons responsible for the operation of these facilities and compliance with all the engineering stipulations you are requiring is to be able to read? There are training courses and certification programs for transfer station operators, managers of composting operations, and certification programs from several associations that will provide the context, knowledge base and skill set training to accomplish these tasks in a safe manner. You cannot expect compliance without understanding what you read. Please require the person responsible for these operations to be certified under SWANA or USCC programs for operations of these types.
Under WAC-173-350-220(2)(j)it states "Limit physical contaminants in incoming feedstocks to no more than five percent by volume" Please identify an accepted test method for accomplishing this section's requirement.
Under WAC-173-350-220(6)(a)(iii) states..."and must contain no more than 5 percent physical contaminants by volume" How is this supposed to be described, what method of evaluation do you propose to be used to allow for precise screening, do you mean of the yearly tonnage, or of the single bag you find full of garbage? What percentage is that and what is the assumed basis amount of waste is this by load or by customer or by material category? What test methods are used to measure for 5% by volume?
Under WAC-173-350-220(6)(a)(iv)(D)(III) states "during the period when the compost is maintained at 55 degrees Celsius 131 degrees Fahrenheit or higher, there must be a minimum of five turnings of the windrow..." Please be specific what you mean by "is maintained" in light of the fact that when you do the turnings, there will be a period of loss of temperature in the pile and it will slowly rebuild in temperature above 55 degrees Celsius or 131 degrees Fahrenheit. How often does this need to be measured and documented, once between turnings? continuously?
Under WAC-173-350-220(6)(a)(iv)(G) states the testing for Table 220-B must be done by an accredited laboratory, what about the 5% contaminates by volume for feedstock testing, what labs do that testing? What is the test method?

No attachments

Comment From: BASF Corporation (Martha Landwehr)

8/13/26 @ 1:51 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Divert (Holly Yanai)

8/13/26 @ 1:35 PM

Please find Divert's comments attached for the Organic Materials Management Rulemaking, Chapter 173-350 WAC.

We appreciate the opportunity and would be happy to chat through any of our comments further.

Cheers,
Holly Yanai

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John MCKINNON

8/13/26 @ 1:19 PM

I am responding to the issue of depackaging that was the topic of an article in the Seattle Times on July 20th. The concern is that the rule language proposed would allow practices that would increase the amount of microplastics in food waste while c...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Scott Woods (Scott Woods)

8/13/26 @ 12:34 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Institute for Local Self-Relia... (Sophia Jones)

8/13/26 @ 12:31 PM

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) is a national nonprofit research and educational organization that advocates for thriving, healthy, and self-reliant communities. Our Composting for Community Initiative supports diversified local composti...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: US Composting Council (Chris Snow)

8/13/26 @ 11:28 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Town & Country Markets (Marina Heppenstall)

8/13/26 @ 11:15 AM

Dear Mr. Fredley,

As a family-owned grocery retailer committed to sustainability, Town & Country Markets appreciates the Department of Ecology's efforts to improve organic waste management across Washington. Thank you for the opportunity to comment ...↓on this important issue, which will have a significant impact on how the grocery industry manages its organic waste streams going forward.

T&C has a long-standing commitment to waste diversion, including robust food donation and composting programs. Our goal is to donate as much edible, unsellable food as possible to local food rescue organizations and compost the remainder. In our experience, most food can be donated when an effective donation program is in place. The organics that remain suitable for composting are primarily unpackaged, although a small percentage of packaged food waste presents operational challenges.

For that reason, we would like to raise a concern about the proposed revision to the definition of source separation. Ecology's proposal appears to allow a container holding both packaged and unpackaged food to be considered source separated, provided it remains separate from garbage. We do not believe this is the most effective approach to managing organic materials. In our experience, the majority of food waste generated by grocery stores that have robust donation programs is unpackaged and can be easily separated. Ecology should prioritize source separation of clean organics while allowing depackaging facilities to focus on processing packaged food waste.

While depackaging facilities play an important role in managing packaged food waste, their use can have unintended consequences, including reduced compost quality, increased microplastic and other contamination risks, and diminished opportunities to recycle packaging materials. These facilities are essential for handling heavily packaged items, but they should not be used as the primary destination for clean, unpackaged organics. We encourage Ecology to consider Vermont's approach, which requires packaged food waste to be kept separate from clean food waste at the point of generation. We also recommend that Ecology define "packaged food" directly in the rule to provide clarity and support consistent implementation by retailers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Marina Heppenstall
Director of Sustainability
Town & Country Markets

No attachments

Comment From: Rubatino Refuse Removal (Joe Ogdon)

8/13/26 @ 11:12 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robert Robbins

8/13/26 @ 11:05 AM

Unused wood is a waste? What has changed about trees?
* What is the reason that clean wood is no longer categorically exempt from solid waste?
* What has changed legislatively so that wood is now considered solid waste?
* What is the difference betwe...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Republic Services (Wendy Weiker)

8/13/26 @ 10:12 AM

Please see attached letter

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: NRDC (Darby Hoover)

8/13/26 @ 9:46 AM

Please see attached for Natural Resources Defense Council's comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Northwest Grocery Retail Assoc... (Brandon Houskeeper)

8/13/26 @ 8:55 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Organic Recycling C... (David Keeney)

8/13/26 @ 8:43 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Vancouver (Matt Bucy)

8/12/26 @ 3:14 PM

Please see attached letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Seattle Public Utilities (McKenna Morrigan)

8/12/26 @ 2:08 PM

Seattle Public Utilities submits comments on the proposed rule language in the attached letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robbie Grieco

8/11/26 @ 9:56 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Brian Fuchs

8/11/26 @ 9:37 AM

Dear Mr. Fredley,

W.L. Gore & Associates appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Organic Materials Management rulemaking. We are a global manufacturer with experience in organic processing operations across multiple countries since 19...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Craig Bowen

8/11/26 @ 8:13 AM

August 13, 2026

Mr. Chris Fredley
Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive Southeast
Lacey, WA 98503

RE: Organic Materials Management Rulemaking - Chapter 173-350 WAC – Solid Waste Handling Standards (Organic Materials Managemen...↓

No attachments

Comment From: City Of Everett (Mayor Cassie Franklin)

8/07/26 @ 1:23 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Longview Kelso Building and Co... (MICHAEL Bridges)

8/07/26 @ 8:50 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington State Building and ... (Heather Kurtenbach)

8/07/26 @ 8:41 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Cedar Grove (Jay Blazey)

8/05/26 @ 10:00 AM

We've been composting in Washington for more than 20 years. We supported the original purpose of this rulemaking, addressing contamination and establishing appropriate regulations for the packaging. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the focus h...↓ places significant new requirements on compost facilities while providing very little meaningful oversight of the packaging operations. I'd like to provide three points.

First, the proposal expands the definition of source separation well beyond statutory authority. We are not opposed to anaerobic digestion and we are not opposed to regulated the packaging. What concerns us is a proposal that would allow garbage to enter the clean organic stream and still be treated as source separated. We also appreciate Ecology's decision to remove the grocery store example that explicitly allowed package and unpackaged food to be mixed together. However, it appears the underlying interpretation may not have changed this. That definition is foundational, and getting it right is critical because so much of this rule depends on it.

Second, the proposal creates regulatory gaps in real world consequences. It has the potential to pull material outside the regulated solid waste system, affecting local government flow control, municipal contracts and tax revenues. Under the current draft, compost facilities face new and costly finished product testing standards more stringent than those that are already working today. The packaging facilities face much less The proposal includes a 5% contamination limit by volume, but it's unclear how that standard would actually be measured or enforced. We just heard questions about that. At the same time, the packaging facilities could accept a broad range of material without any requirement to recover a report on residuals.

Third, we don't believe the environmental review goes far enough. This proposal is expected to encourage additional DE packaging facilities throughout the state. Before this rule is finalized, the environmental review should fully evaluate what happens to the residual waste these facilities generate where that material ultimately goes in the resulting landfill and emissions impacts. The proposal also ignore state statute that prohibits landfill and recyclables and has not taken this very real concern into account.

Finally, I'd like to close with a few practical recommendations. Source separation works. It isn't complicated. Washington residents and businesses have been doing it successfully for decades. We ask that it's defined what qualifies as heavily packaged foods, so only those materials go through the packaging. Equipment keep clean food waste separate. Vermont has taken this approach. Washington can do the same, develop meaningful guardrails for the packaging, clear limits on inbound contamination, reporting on what is received and what is recovered, and a minimum recovery standard so we know these facilities are recovering versus landfilling. We are submitting detailed written comments that address these issues in much greater detail. But today our message is straightforward. We do not believe this proposal as currently drafted solves the contamination problem it is set out to address and sets us back in a few key environmental areas. We respectfully ask Ecology to revise the rule before finalized.

No attachments

Comment From: Divert (Chris Thomas)

8/05/26 @ 10:00 AM

I don't really have any formal written testimony. I can certainly provide it in written form, but I just want to address the points I made earlier in Q&A, but also want to address the, the, the comment about source separation and, and having a residu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tacoma Pierce County Health De... (Robbie Grieco)

8/05/26 @ 10:00 AM

I wanted to comment, there's a couple of sections that I think could utilize clarification. In the preprocessor section on page 21, it states permit exempt facilities that are Co located etcetera are not required to meet the permanent requirements of...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Zero Waste Washington (Heather Trim)

8/05/26 @ 10:00 AM

Three just real high level comments.

one is very, very strongly feel that the training must be improved in the the the language for training must be improved in in the draft. We have required training for other arenas, for example, wastewater treatm...↓ facilities, etcetera. So this is not some sort of, you know, oddball thing to have it be in this field. And they're even if they're not exactly the same, there are trainings available across the board for the different aspects of the solid waste that we're talking about here. And maybe you could customize a little bit if you're feeling like there's a need to do that when preparing, when you're working on the stakeholder process to build up to the legislative bills. There was really strong comments on the part of the consultants who are going in and trying to help make high quality facilities across Washington and across the US. That training is like a really, really critical part of this. And there's too much staff turnover and the technology does change and there's a need for for people really to be refreshed on an annual basis.

Major, major issue two I know this is not going to be agreed with by many people in the in the compost world, but I do think we need to have tighter restrictions for the contamination that and whether it be volume or or weight that's, that's a discussion for others, but that we cannot this is a major issue in terms of the plastics coming through in the products.

And finally, I really strongly feel that we need to differentiate between lightly packaged and heavily packaged food items, food like they've done in Vermont and would like to see that language incorporated.

No attachments

Comment From: PCC Community Markets (Mike Wenrick)

7/27/26 @ 12:00 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Judy Demetre

7/27/26 @ 9:30 AM

Please do not overcomplicate our recycling process. We need commonsense rules that prioritize waste prevention. Thank you. Judy Demetre

No attachments

Comment From: Signe Roscoe

7/25/26 @ 11:40 AM

I am proud that Washington is a national leader in recycling and composting. I want the Washington State Department of Ecology to require that depackagers meet a minimum recycling rate and that easily separable packaging be pulled apart before it rea...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Tareq F

7/24/26 @ 11:24 AM

No to introducing depackaging process using the current technology. The result is contaminated plastic and contaminated food waste. We would rather see the energy and resources be directed towards separating and sorting at the source

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Lewy

7/23/26 @ 8:45 PM

I oppose the proposed depackaging legislation. We need commonsense guardrails with clear definitions, contamination limits, and policies that prioritize waste prevention, food donation, and maximum diversion of recyclables and organics.

No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Wessel-Estes

7/23/26 @ 9:24 AM

Please, make sure that there are clear rules and policies for separation of food waste from packaging materials, and requiring both organic matter composting AND material recycling. Allowing for methods that compress packaging and food together serve...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mariza Cabral

7/22/26 @ 1:51 AM

The proposed rules are not good enough to protect organic material from dangerous contamination (such as by PFAS), and also not good enough for recycling of packaging materials. I urge our state of WA to follow the example proposed by Vermont's Depar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Vic Koenig

7/21/26 @ 10:54 PM

Keep food waste clean and on a path to compost or biogas. Keep packaging on a path to recycling, not shredded into a contaminated slurry. This proposed rule change is not good enough.

No attachments

Comment From: brian chestnut

7/21/26 @ 10:35 PM

Please adopt the Vermont Rule! As noted in the Seattle Times:

Vermont's Department of Environmental Conservation is preparing to adopt final regulations with guardrails that prioritize source separation, keeping food and packaging apart wherever it...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan O'Connor

7/21/26 @ 9:03 PM

I oppose DOE's proposed rules for plastic food package recycling. They do not provide sufficient controls to ensure food waste headed to composting is plastic free or that the plastic packaging is food free and recyclable. Go with Vermont's model.

No attachments

Comment From: Pennie O'Grady

7/21/26 @ 4:05 PM

Recycling and composting are important in Washington. Let's get it right. Please prioritize source separation instead of depackaging.

Depackaging overcomplicates a fairly simple waste-separation process that already works. Organic waste separated at...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Plahn

7/21/26 @ 3:23 PM

Please add minimum recycling rates to industrial depackaging standards. Consider adopting standards in line with those being adopted by Vermont.
Allowing plastic and food waste to end up in landfill insead of responsibly separating them for compost ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: zerman and anne whitley

7/21/26 @ 2:18 PM

We are disappointed in the efforts of DOE to place loopholes in the ecology program for pre-processors and for processing organic waste at the source.
For one, depackaging is not regulated or adequated defined. Depackaging by pre-processors are e...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Reynolds

7/21/26 @ 9:57 AM

To decrease food waste going to landfills and creating planet-warming methane, Washington's rules for organic need clear definitions, contamination limits, and policies that prioritize waste prevention, food donation, and maximum diversion of recycla...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rob Simpson

7/21/26 @ 8:02 AM

I favor the Vermont model.

No attachments

Comment From: Jonna Hough

7/21/26 @ 7:41 AM

Please prioritize source separation! Be tough! We can do this!

No attachments

Comment From: Tim Colman

7/21/26 @ 7:13 AM

Hi from Seattle. Let's follow Zero Waste's recommendations and follow Vermont's lead in keeping food and packaging separate.

I'm appalled the manufacters got to shift these costs on to us. You should have laws already on the books that makes the f...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Reeves

7/20/26 @ 8:26 PM

It's clear that environmental sustainability requires effort - the effort to ensure industrial recycling and landfill diversion technology doesn't produce new waste streams while attempting to reduce existing ones. Source separation of food packaging...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mardel and Roger Tanquist

7/20/26 @ 7:42 PM

As one who has supported the terrific efforts of The Department of Ecology, I am disturbed by the direction of Industrial Depackaging.

It appears that sufficient regulations are not in place to ensure that food waste is separated from packaging—resu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Judith Leshner

7/20/26 @ 6:17 PM

Good Day:
Today, July 20, 2026, The Seattle Times published a Special article by Heather Trim and Brad Lovass about the Dept. of Ecology's rule-making that will weaken our State's handling of food wastes. This weakening of food waste management w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Van Bruggen

7/20/26 @ 6:00 PM

Please do not allow garbage contaminated with food to be put into landfills. Methane is an incredibly big reason why we have climate change, and one of the best ways to produce less methane is to stop food waste and stop putting food scraps into our...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ron Lichty

7/20/26 @ 5:59 PM

The opinion posted today to the Seattle times by Heather Trim and Brad Lovas makes sense to me and that it should be followed through.

No attachments

Comment From: Angela McCullagh

7/20/26 @ 5:41 PM

As a Seattle resident who works very hard to dispose of my food waste and recyclables responsibly (even washing baggies etc. and paying for Ridwell) I would like the Dept. of Ecology to keep plastic and food waste separate. Please do not rely on depa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peggy Printz

7/20/26 @ 4:05 PM

Please do not adopt the rules you are considering. Instead, please follow the lead of Vermont as detailed in today's Op-Ed in Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/this-industry-sounds-green-but-it-could-undermine-wa-climate-progress/

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Beth Rollinger

7/20/26 @ 3:03 PM

Please require depackaging facilities to separate food from plastic packaging so each can be recycled rather than compressing fruit and plastic containers together into a slurry that cannot be recycled and then becomes garbage containing plastics har...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jan Wachholz

7/20/26 @ 1:53 PM

Washington must Washington must build on our recycling progress. Keep food waste clean and on a path to compost or biogas. Keep packaging on a path to recycling, not shredded into a contaminated slurry.
Washington's rules need clear definitions, cont...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Terri Weiner

7/20/26 @ 1:07 PM

I understand that under these rules machines which ruin both the compostable materials and the packaging which could be recycled would be excluded from regulation. This doesn't lighten our load on the planet and only makes more money for a few corpo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Douwe Rienstra

7/20/26 @ 12:59 PM

I just read the opinion piece in the Seattle Times about this issue. I agree with authors. I already spend much time disposing of my waste responsibly.

Further, I ran an independent primary care practice here for about 40 years. We went to sign...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carol Chipman

7/20/26 @ 11:37 AM

As a concerned Washington state resident, I am urging the Dept of Ecology to make rules that are clearly defined, have contamination limits, and include policies that prioritize waste prevention, food donation, and maximum diversion of recyclables an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Grant

7/20/26 @ 8:56 AM

Washington state needs to require that depackagers meet a minimum recycling rate. In addition, easily separable packaging needs to be pulled apart before it reaches a depackager. Current depackaging machines are creating contaminated food slurries a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cedar Grove (Jay Blazey)

7/09/26 @ 3:10 PM

Thank you to you and your team for your continued engagement on Ecology’s ongoing organics rulemaking process.

We appreciate the change to the inbound contamination limit in the recently released draft rule in response to feedback and concerns raised...↓

Attached are the four outstanding issues we would like to see meaningfully addressed by the Department of Ecology before adoption of a final rule.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: M Burwell

6/23/26 @ 4:17 PM

This is an important topic, but one critical piece seems to be missing. And that is public education on composting. For this to be successful, there needs to be increased, clear, simple, public education. Picture-based directions on containers and a ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Larisa Brown

6/22/26 @ 7:11 PM

I maintain a bird and pollinator habitat on a rooftop in downtown Seattle, where I have hosted almost twenty different species of wild birds, and at least three bumblebee species as well as butterflies and smaller pollinators (mason bees, sweat bees,...↓

Attachments:

Download