10:11:36 We will now be taking verbal comments from meeting participants. We have about an hour and a half scheduled to receive comments today.
10:11:43 This is not a Q&A session and staff will not be answering questions at this time.
10:11:48 If you have specific questions that you'd like to ask the team, please email them to organics rule at ec dot wad.gov.
10:11:56 If you'd like to comment, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom and wait to be called on.
10:12:01 We will try our best to call on people in the order that they raise their hand.
10:12:05 If you're joining us by phone today, you can raise or lower your hand by pressing star nine on your dial pad.
10:12:13 And you can unmute or mute by pressing star six on your dial pad.
10:12:18 Please keep your microphone muted and camera off until you are called on.
10:12:22 Out of respect for everyone else who wishes to comment today.
10:12:25 We ask that you please keep your comments to no more than three minutes.
10:12:29 We will be keeping time and we'll ask you to wrap up your thoughts after the three minute mark.
10:12:35 Please summarize lengthy comments or repetitive ones. If you hear someone speak and their comments are reflective of your own.
10:12:41 You can simply state for the record that you agree with that person's comments.
10:12:46 You may also submit comments in writing to us by visiting our comment page.
10:12:50 Comments made verbally today and those submitted in writing receive equal weight and consideration by the team.
10:12:58 So if you have additional comments that you don't have time to fully express during the soliciting session.
10:13:03 We encourage you to provide them to us in writing. By visiting our comment page.
10:13:09 On the right side of the screen, you can find the comic categories that we use in the questions to consider documents.
10:13:16 When called on, please tell us your name, your affiliation if applicable.
10:13:20 And the category you were commenting on. That will help us better keep track of the feedback that we received today.
10:13:27 And with that, let's go ahead and take our first comment, Caleb.
10:13:32 So again, if you have any comments, please feel free to raise your hand and we will call on you.
10:14:00 And once again, you can put a comment in the chat and I can read it out or you can Raise your hand and I'll call on you and you can discuss your comment or say your comment to the group.
10:14:32 J. Feel free to unmute yourself.
10:14:43 Yep, we can hear you.
10:14:40 All right. Thanks, Caleb. Can you hear me? So my comment, my first comment is about contamination threshold limits and also pre-processing.
10:14:53 And so what I'd like to raise is that New regulations must protect and maintain our state source separated system at a minimum.
10:15:02 And any new regulation needs to be consistent with the state law we already have.
10:15:07 Under the business organics mandate, which requires source separation Cedar Grove's position is that with very few exceptions.
10:15:17 The generator must remain responsible for source separating all non-compostable and recyclable materials at the point of generation.
10:15:25 The state law is pretty clear that source separation is defined at the point of generation.
10:15:32 Other comments on this issue, which is critically important. Easily and readily recyclable items that cannot be recovered on the back end should not be allowed in preprocessing facilities.
10:15:47 The comment questions did include a 90% recovery rate requirement that seems like a good level of recovery in the back end. We've seen that technology and protocols can get to that 90% recovery rate.
10:16:01 If I only have three minutes for all these, I can touch on the other subjects, but record keeping, reporting, transparency is important. We would support a monthly report.
10:16:11 By material class tracking what comes in and what comes out.
10:16:19 And then I guess the last point is if you aren't hauling source separated material you're effectively hauling municipal solid waste and that situation must be heavily regulated.
10:16:30 So that's all I have for now. Thank you.
10:16:32 Thank you, Jay.
10:16:45 Megan Uecker. You're unmuted. I don't know if you want to speak?
10:16:58 Thank you, Megan.
10:17:49 And once again, just a reminder, if you would like to provide verbal comments today, please feel free to raise your hand using the Zoom raise hand feature.
10:18:54 So Fannie says in the comments that under table 220B.
10:19:00 That is still a lot of plastic.
10:19:23 I see Carolyn has a comment. Can we show the slide again that lists the WAC sections?
10:19:24 Yeah.
10:19:29 In question.
10:20:26 Okay, I think Carolyn got it. So we could probably go back to the listening session slide, Caleb.
10:20:33 And I do still see people rolling in.
10:20:44 And I don't see anybody jumping up to provide any comments. Jay, did you have anything else you wanted to provide comment-wise? And so it looks like we'll probably have some time
10:21:12 Hi, I'm trying to navigate this. Am I up? Okay.
10:21:16 Yeah, Jay, if you want to speak, feel free to speak.
10:21:20 No one's putting that yet.
10:21:20 Yeah, I guess a couple other points. You know, I think in a good system we need to be careful about packaged food and source separated food and not commingling those.
10:21:35 So I would add that. And then in terms of digest state, I would add that you know if you're land applying it, it should meet state standards that we have for composting our biosolids.
10:21:49 And then the last thing, because it's a comprehensive document, but I would just flag the need. And also, I know this you're not answering questions, but a little bit more explanation
10:22:03 On the permit exemption sections about what's currently allowed and what's not.
10:22:06 But I think in general, just there needs to be some emphasis. And I've talked with staff about this before about tightening up the definitions for yard debris.
10:22:15 And wood waste and making that as clear as possible because we've seen a lot of abuse of those definitions by people accepting yard debris under a kind of wood waste type exemption.
10:22:28 So that would be my last comment.
10:22:30 Great. Thank you, Jay.
10:22:42 Chris Thomas. Is he unmuted? Feel free to turn your camera on if you'd like but The time is yours.
10:22:51 Yeah, hey, this is Chris Thomas with Divert. We'll have some additional comments to share in writing.
10:22:57 Wanted to speak to the contamination thresholds obviously contamination in finished products is a big problem.
10:23:08 Or else we wouldn't have had this provision in the legislation.
10:23:14 And this rulemaking session. Recognize that, you know, that that waste generators do perform source separation But as we increase as we increase the amount of commercial food waste that's generated through these laws the existing contamination that we already experience.
10:23:38 It already shows up in our finished products. Is only going to continue to increase. Incidental contamination is just sort of a fact of life.
10:23:48 When you're dealing with organics and it's especially so in commercially generated materials such as food waste.
10:23:55 And so I think we need to have greater standards in place for organics processors.
10:24:01 So that they're able to maintain a higher quality of efficiency with respect to depackaging and contamination removal.
10:24:13 And that choice and can and should be made at the waste generator level.
10:24:21 If a waste generator wants to improve upon the amount of source separation efficiency that they have then they should be able to choose someone who can perform that service for them.
10:24:36 If it's all in the spirit of lowering contamination. And so I think two things here we want to have The waste generators should have the ability to address that.
10:24:49 Whether it's manually on their own or through some sort of mechanical separation process.
10:24:57 And the standards in which permitted facilities should be able to accept that.
10:25:06 Should depend greatly on that. If a waste generator is not taking additional steps.
10:25:13 To improve source separation and reduce contamination then that material should only be going to a permitted facility that has the appropriate types of equipment and depackaging services in place to address that contamination.
10:25:30 And then finally, the rules around finished products and finished organic products such as compost and soil amendment and digestate I think they can and should need to be improved.
10:25:44 Such that the finished products that are coming out the other side of the process, the byproducts.
10:25:50 Are of a higher quality. Over and over again.
10:25:55 The contamination and the commentary and complaints around foreign objects in products that are Reporting to be organic organic soil amendments or compost products And we just simply need to improve upon those. And so I think a greater degree of testing uh to testing
10:26:20 Limit the amount of contaminants that is constantly showing up in these products.
10:26:26 Needs to be implemented on the back end. Also, with respect to recovery rate.
10:26:34 I heard some comments Earlier, I think from jay about a 90% recovery rate.
10:26:41 Recovery rates are good in theory, but Depends a lot on what kind of material is being processed. So for example, if you're doing anaerobic digestion there's a whole lot of other things that are recovered as part of the process. There's an inorganic product. There's inorganic contamination.
10:27:03 That is efficiently removed. That might not otherwise be removed in a process that doesn't have equipment to address it.
10:27:10 There's water, which makes up a significant part of a process.
10:27:14 There's organic material that's organic material that's not digestible, but can become a digestate In the back end of the process.
10:27:23 And then, of course, there's a biogas that's created and so You know, just simply designating a 90% recovery rate is um not exactly an appropriate way to look at it and really all it does is beg further questions and
10:27:40 Perhaps even incentivize some incentivize processors to not accept material that might otherwise be landfilled but should be processed in order to comply with current law.
10:27:52 I think the better way to think about addressing contamination is not through a recovery rate But through just better measurement on the finished products that are coming out the other I'm probably hitting my time, so I'll pause there.
10:28:10 And submit any other comments through the written portal.
10:28:18 Chris. We appreciate that.
10:28:48 Once again, for those of you who just joined us, if you have any comments that you'd like to provide to us, please raise your hand at this time and we'll call on you and give you the floor to provide your comment to us.
10:29:00 We'll go ahead and hang out for a few more minutes. And if we don't see anybody, we might wrap up this meeting pretty early here.
10:29:52 I see Kate's comment in the chat. I see the proposed rulemaking questions.
10:29:59 Were you going to go through these questions facilitate the discussion? We could do that.
10:30:07 That would be helpful to people. Let me see if I can pull that up.
10:30:15 And Caleb, maybe it'd be best if You wanted to share those questions.
10:30:16 You know
10:30:18 We could have them up on the screen maybe that will help spark some conversation.
10:30:37 I do, yes.
10:30:36 Do you have the link. Just put it in the chat. I'm sure it's already in there, but it's just… make the process easier.
10:30:46 I found it at the top.
10:30:49 Okay.
10:31:05 And I can just read through these. And if anybody has Something we want to share on any of these topics, then go ahead and feel free to raise your hand at any time.
10:31:16 So the first piece has to deal with contamination threshold limits. And the first question is, what options at solid waste facilities should ecology consider We're preventing physical contaminants in food waste, other organic feedstocks and finished compost.
10:31:35 Currently, a facility must reject feedstock loads that appear to have 5% or more by volume We also have a plan for removing contaminants prior to composting.
10:31:47 Finished compost must have less than or equal to 1% by weight and not exceed 0.25% by weight of film plastics.
10:31:59 How should the amount of physical contaminants be measured? What is an appropriate threshold for contamination in incoming feedstocks?
10:32:08 And what is an appropriate contamination limit in finished compost products?
10:32:14 So I'll just pause here and see if anybody has any thoughts on any of these questions in this first section.
10:32:35 So India put a comment that she would be speaking up, but she has something going on with her mic so I can read her comment.
10:32:42 She wants to echo Jay's comments on the importance of source separation.
10:32:47 Critical work and taxpayer funds over the past decade have created an implemented source separation programs.
10:32:54 Those programs have increased organics diversion and lower contamination levels and feedstocks sent to composting facilities.
10:33:03 And consequently higher quality recycled products.
10:33:21 See a couple of hands down.
10:33:25 Keith, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:33:33 Hey, sorry, guys. I was trying not to jump on the mic because I have a tendency to go long.
10:33:39 Real quick on these, I would just say that the on the questions that we were talking about, the appropriate threshold for contamination in incoming feedstocks, I think this goes to what Chris was saying.
10:33:53 About if a facility is permitted to take that type of waste and has the tools and processes to process it without having an issue with the contamination showing up in their finished compost.
10:34:07 Then I think there needs to be an exception for that. There needs to be a way for a facility to be permitted to take that kind of waste because i think that in the future we're going to have a lot of waste
10:34:17 That we have to deal with at these facilities and contamination is not always something that's easily removed.
10:34:27 By the people throwing the stuff away. I think we've all experienced that with every type of recycling that we try and do.
10:34:34 I think that there should be some responsibility by the facilities.
10:34:39 To refuse loads that are overly contaminated if they're not able to take them.
10:34:44 But I think that other facilities that have the ability to take that waste should be allowed to take it.
10:34:52 Thank you, Keith. Chris Thomas, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:34:56 Yeah, I would agree with Keith there that if a facility
10:35:04 Is not able to process that material such that they need to reject it.
10:35:09 Then that would suggest that the permitted facility perhaps isn't equipped to address commercial food waste or any other contaminated type of of organic material and source separation, I'll echo everything that everyone already said about it. It is critical and it must be done.
10:35:29 It must be done at the waste generator level. However.
10:35:35 The only reason we're here addressing this issue of contamination is because if we had a system that's worked perfectly over the years.
10:35:44 And if source separation was the end all be all solution.
10:35:47 We wouldn't be here addressing contamination. And we wouldn't be talking about the importance of ensuring that byproducts that are coming out the other end of the process are free and clear of contamination.
10:36:00 And so, you know. I don't think, I think we all need to we all need to agree that source separation is paramount and critical But there's still a problem that needs to be addressed here.
10:36:14 And waste generators could do a better job of addressing contamination And if they can't or are not able to.
10:36:23 Then we need to be making sure that they're going to facilities that are equipped to address this and that i think can be sorted out by simply having more rigid standards in place on the back end to make sure that
10:36:39 Contamination is truly removed from our finished products.
10:36:47 Thank you, Chris. Neil Edgar.
10:36:52 Feel free to unmute yourself.
10:36:57 Good morning, I'm Neil Edgar and Associates. I'm California-based and have a lot of experience in permitting and composting operations.
10:37:09 And… Executive Director of the California Compost Coalition for 23 years.
10:37:15 So I'll weigh in on this in two ways. One is I'm not going to address the incoming feedstock levels contamination, that's something you guys will have to wrestle with in California. We don't have limits.
10:37:28 On incoming contamination. But we do have limits on outbound contamination levels from intermediate processing facilities.
10:37:39 So if you're an intermediate processor, a MRF or another type of operation that's processing organic waste and sending it to a composting facility.
10:37:48 That material that has been processed has to meet certain contamination levels.
10:37:56 The lower that you can set those levels, the better to prevent contamination from reaching composting operations.
10:38:05 And the outbound compost standards and I would say outbound to Chris Thomas's point earlier about having high standards for the outbound material. I don't think that the current standard of 1% by weight 0.25% by weight for film plastics is adequate. I think you need to adjust
10:38:26 That limit down to what state DOT limits are 0.5%. That's where California has been for the last eight years.
10:38:36 And we've seen that improve market acceptance of compost build consumer confidence and get more materials moved into agriculture, which is now about three quarters of the market in California.
10:38:52 Until that happens, I think you have difficulty accessing that market.
10:38:58 And I would add that those standards need to apply across the board.
10:39:02 Or digestate. Compost.
10:39:07 Organic materials that are going to market. So that it's a level playing field, including mulch that's being land applied.
10:39:15 Those are standards we have here. And I would even add that stability metrics would be important.
10:39:22 Any materials going out to market like digestate. That are immature are not really going to have agronomic benefit for the receiving operator, if it's a farmer So having that ability to send them stable clean material is going to build markets for the materials that
10:39:47 Are being diverted from landfill operations in the state.
10:39:53 I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
10:39:55 Great. Thank you, Neil. Adam, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:40:01 Sure. Thanks, everyone. My name is Adam Elner. I work with Full Circle Environmental, speaking from kind of two hats to different project hats.
10:40:11 I do a lot of education and outreach around the Puget Sound region.
10:40:16 To businesses and multifamily properties specifically around organics diversion. And from what I can tell you kind of from the commercial generators perspective, especially speaking to contamination.
10:40:31 Is that it's usually a result of one or both of two things.
10:40:36 It's a lack of education and awareness or it's cost pressures.
10:40:42 And so my other hat that I'm speaking from is I was part of a research team on the Compostable Products Advisory Committee.
10:40:49 Convened by HB 1033. And so I interviewed facilities and jurisdictions around the country about organics management and an overwhelming theme from that was that from the facility's perspective being able to pass along some of those costs of contamination to the hauling party that delivered the contamination so that they can then pass along the costs
10:41:20 To the generator. Was a really essential component.
10:41:24 Of both keeping the cost of organic service lower but also enabling that financial pressure to be felt by the generators rather than them being able to contaminate and keep throwing plastic in the compost.
10:41:38 Without receiving any of that feedback. And so I just kind of wanted to share those perspectives and really enabling the haulers to and incentivizing them to deliver that education to the generators is a really important part of this conversation.
10:41:58 Great. Thank you, Adam. Jay, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:42:04 Yeah, thank you. First, I would just say regarding Neil's comment, I agree that we need to have consistent standards.
10:42:13 So a point to that. In terms of what Adam just said, that's what I'd like to comment on in Cedar Grove, we have a lot of customers here regionally And the education piece is critical.
10:42:30 Customers. Grocers in the area that are very able to source separate their waste send a lot of food for donation.
10:42:40 And also send us a very clean stream. It takes work, it takes time, and it takes labor.
10:42:45 At the store. So I just want people to be cognizant that this convenience factor is a compelling proposition for some of these companies, but it's definitely possible.
10:42:57 So I would add that and then also that recycling our own organics programs Again, state law comes into effect here but they really shouldn't allow for known garbage being intermixed with source separated loads and that's That's key. So if we're going to start allowing that, we're going to have a very big
10:43:21 Problem on our hands of the regulations that we have being significantly weakened. And that's a major concern for the hauling industry.
10:43:31 And also for the organics management and composting industry.
10:43:37 Great. Thank you, Jay.
10:43:44 Great. Thanks so much. Any other comments on contamination threshold limits, which is this first section here? I see Chris has his hand up again.
10:43:52 Just in addition to what I said earlier, I should have noted also that I think the 5% eyeball test that we currently have on incoming feedstocks is probably a bit dated.
10:44:05 It's, as I understand it, it was included 10 or 11, 12 years ago.
10:44:12 And I think it's a bit incompatible with the current law of 1799 and 2301.
10:44:18 In that, you know, all it's doing is encouraging uh a processor to make the determination on their own as to whether or not a particular load is contaminated or not.
10:44:30 And if they don't have the equipment or ability to process that material in place.
10:44:37 I'm not sure they're not sure properly incentivized to reject that if it's Because perhaps it would be costly to go to some other processor.
10:44:50 Perhaps for them, it might be easier to landfill that material.
10:44:55 But it's not going to be compliant with the current laws that we now have in place.
10:45:01 Now we have diversion laws in place, 1799 and 2301 And so if you're putting, by still having the burden on the processor to determine what is and is not an appropriate threshold for rejection.
10:45:15 There's a bit of a moral hazard in place uh because One, 5% is a very subjective test. An eyeball test is really difficult to tell.
10:45:25 What is in fact 5% and what is not. And two, if a processor doesn't have the equipment and ability to address the ongoing contamination, which we know is to be a problem.
10:45:38 Which we know is an ongoing problem. Then they're not exactly, they may not exactly be incentivized to address it for the reasons I said before with disposal costs And that's why I think we saw some language attempted to be put in this
10:45:54 Legislation that we're seeing this spring. Where, you know, there was an idea of, well, let's let's pay folks to reject loads because we know this is a problem. If it wasn't a problem then that proposal wouldn't have been put forward.
10:46:08 But, you know, I think it does speak to the fact that this 5% eyeball test is a bit dated, you know, and certainly incompatible with current law since all it's doing is encouraging more organics to be landfilled.
10:46:20 If it's in fact hard to decontaminate. And, you know, we should be setting ourselves up for success to better address that hard to hard to clean material that, you know, sort of hard to process material Instead of coming up with ways
10:46:40 To incentivize that material to be sent to the landfill.
10:46:46 Thank you, Chris. Fanny, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:46:52 Yes, I agree with Chris. I agree with everyone that has shared earlier that contamination is a multifaceted approach.
10:47:00 However, as a regulator, it's hard to eyeball contamination on site and so There should be some type of metric built into the code revision to determine just how much, get an idea of how much contamination is coming in.
10:47:15 These could be waste audits and then follow up required action plans for facilities when these thresholds are not met.
10:47:28 Thank you, Vinny.
10:47:36 All right, I don't see any more hands for the contamination threshold limits. Let's move on to slaughter waste.
10:47:44 So slaughter waste generators have found it increasingly difficult to find processing options for their material.
10:47:49 Prompting more generators to consider on-site management. This waste stream can cause significant impacts if managed incorrectly.
10:47:58 As Ecology reviews permit structures and existing permit exemptions. What factors would you like us to consider regarding slaughter waste?
10:48:07 And then the second question there, how should on-farm slaughter waste fit in with agricultural practices?
10:48:13 So if you have any comments on that, please feel free to raise your hand and we'll call on you.
10:48:37 You see, Fannie has her hand up. Is it still up or did you raise it again, Fanny?
10:48:45 Go ahead.
10:48:42 Sit again. Okay, thank you. So with just the change in climate we're seeing new diseases. And so we want those diseases to be taken into consideration.
10:48:58 Right now with the avian flu affecting cattle. And so we often get approached by our sister agency that operates a landfill whether, you know.
10:49:09 Just inquiring about which animal waste can be disposed of at the landfill and so we want we would like the code to take that into consideration and then just there's just very different degrees of diseases, like the chronic wasting disease that's some you know something that may not easily break down through
10:49:34 Great. Thank you, Kenny.
10:50:05 I don't see any other hands raised. I do see Keith's comments. So should composting facilities be required to upgrade their equipment to have options to remove contamination A decrease in allowable contaminants might force the issue with facilities that don't have ways to deal with that contamination.
10:50:19 On pharma should remain on farm under ag regulation.
10:50:26 Oh, I'm sorry. Gotcha.
10:50:24 Sorry, that first comment was on the last section that we remove i was typing it as you were moving away My on-farm comment is just anything on-farm slaughter should fit in with ag.
10:50:37 Should be regulated by ag.
10:50:50 Troy Lautenbach has a comment regarding the 5% threshold. He says, my worry is the restrictions regarding this, restricting possible new technologies to address contamination and limiting the ability to bring in contaminated organics.
10:51:09 And to clean them up.
10:51:14 Thank you, Troy.
10:51:24 Okay, should we go ahead and move on to preprocessing operations then?
10:51:32 There are currently no specific standards for depackers. As a result, depackers are currently operating under the material recovery facility standards.
10:51:41 Ecology proposes creating preprocessing standards for such operations and other organic preprocessing.
10:51:48 One way to address such types of operations could be a minimum recovery rate that gets recycled.
10:51:55 And the question is, what should ecology consider as we develop standards for these facilities?
10:51:59 And again, it's talking about pre-processing facilities here. Any comments on this?
10:52:20 Jay, feel free to… I guess you unmuted yourself.
10:52:24 Okay, thank you. I just want to be clear that Cedar Grove's not opposed to anaerobic digestion or other forms of organics management. I don't want to be that to be any of the takeaway here.
10:52:38 It seems like there's some commentary regarding some sort of allowance over a 5%.
10:52:51 And kind of getting away from source separation, I think that's very concerning from a deregulatory perspective.
10:52:58 Now, getting past that, I think the inbound standard should remain tight at 5% to ensure generators are not being let off the hook from doing this important work where it's the best place to do it.
10:53:12 And if there is an exception, which maybe that's something the rulemaking, I mean, I think that is something the rulemaking will need to be addressed, but exceptions need to be narrowly tailored.
10:53:22 And you really shouldn't be taking garbage on and the acceptance list. If there's a small class of material that needs to go separate, that's fine. But if you're adding it to other recyclable and clean materials then you're just creating more landfill waste and the whole
10:53:40 Point of our system in our state is to maximize diversion and limit landfill landfilling of waste. So those are some considerations that definitely need to be put in place.
10:53:51 It would include protocols and procedures to prevent cross-contamination And then again, a prevention of clean recyclables and other materials from being mixed with with solid waste materials.
10:54:07 Thank you, Jay. Kate, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:54:12 Sure, thank you. I think ecology consider um rules related to contamination as it pertains to depackaging technology so like we should have some some provisions in place that if the packagers are going to be used that it's not going to contribute to contamination in
10:54:39 The feedstock that is, you know, comes out of those depackaging technologies.
10:54:44 And then the other thing I would like ecology to consider in this rulemaking process is that food donation and rescue needs to be prioritized above all else and You know, a consideration for whether or not wholesome food that can be
10:55:05 Rescued to feed people whether or not that should be allowed in depackaging type systems.
10:55:16 Or when and where that might be allowed.
10:55:19 Thank you, Kate.
10:55:25 Troy, feel free to unmute yourself.
10:55:29 Thanks. I finally found where my hand is. I don't know why I can't remember these things.
10:55:34 Just to comment to Jay, my caution around that is that if If… If there's an organic stream that is at 90% recyclability and 10% is contamination, but there's a technology. I mean, I just came back from the composting conference
10:55:55 They're working hard on coming up with ways of depackaging. There's stuff that we're exploring.
10:56:02 That I would be cautious around saying, okay, we're at 90% on that load.
10:56:07 We're going to just send it all to the landfill now.
10:56:11 Because even though there's technology that we can clean that up.
10:56:15 Also saying that I think the best thing we can do, of course, is to get it as clean as possible on the front side.
10:56:22 But there are cases that where there's a possibility where that might not be the case.
10:56:28 And we hopefully can we hopefully have measures in place to be able to still capture those organics as long as, like Kate said, we are not contributing to more pollution plastics in the environment.
10:56:41 I just wanted to say that. Thanks.
10:56:43 Thank you, Troy. Heather, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:56:47 Yeah, sorry. I'm going to barely be able to talk today. I'm at the legislature. And as you can see, there's a lot of background noise.
10:56:53 And craziness. But anyway, I just want to say one quick comment on this, which is we are very much concerned about what we are
10:57:13 Thank you, Heather. Chris, would you like to unmute yourself?
10:57:20 Yeah, I just want to say I agree with what Keith is saying. Obviously.
10:57:26 We all want to make sure source separation is better and we want to address it at the source.
10:57:34 But the reality is… there is contamination.
10:57:39 And the purpose of a depackager is not to depackage each and every piece of material that might be in a waste stream It's to address the fact that there's going to be incidental packaging that is part of the material, especially when you're dealing with increased
10:57:56 Diversion amounts for commercial food waste. And having the ability to accept material that occasionally is in that form allows for improvements to be made on food recovery and food donation part of this, which is, you know, when you go back to prevention, prevention is first and foremost way more important than diversion, way more important than
10:58:23 Compost or digestion or any other step. And, you know, Kate, I think, made a good point about that, that, you know, we shouldn't ignore that. And so One, we need to make sure we have depackaging in place, but we also can acknowledge and should acknowledge
10:58:41 That it's not meant to depackage each and everything. It's meant to address the incidental inorganic material that is left over or that is being contemplated for other uses such as donation.
10:58:56 The other thing about depackaging equipment it's difficult i would just from our own experience, we have worked with depackaging equipment over many years.
10:59:10 And we've improved it quite a bit. I'll just say that many of the sort of off-the-shelf turnkey pieces of equipment that you might see in places like europe They have mixed results, quite frankly.
10:59:27 And so, you know, coming up with a specification or pointing to one product or another might still land us in the same problem where we still have more contamination showing up on the back end than we should. And what we had done over the years is, you know, we've really worked hard to develop a proprietary system
10:59:46 Which can minimize that back end contamination And so, you know, the point of what we're doing is is to make sure we're not sending organic material to the landfill. And so having these tools in place to further refine contaminated organics.
11:00:03 So that we're pulling as much organics out and sending in organics either to recycling if it's in the source separation process or for items that cannot be recycled to the landfill is really important.
11:00:20 Without specifying a specific type of depackager, I think we just simply need to focus on results.
11:00:26 We need to focus on what is what are acceptable levels of contamination in the back end?
11:00:33 And make sure that we are requiring those limits to be in effect. I think that will solve for and a lot of the manual separation processes as well as our depackaging processes to remove the remaining incidental contaminants.
11:00:54 Thank you, Chris. Fannie, you had your hand raised. Do you still want to comment?
11:01:00 Yeah, sure, I can. I posted in the chat replying to Troy's comment about with the 5% threshold and restricting possible new technologies. And I was just thinking that typically for The solar waste handling standards, there's usually some language along the lines of like the health department may approve other technologies if
11:01:22 These conditions are met. And so that's one possible way that that could be explored. However.
11:01:29 Is an option like that is included, again, as a regulator, it would be very helpful if those requirements are pretty prescriptive and and clear as to what those conditions should be.
11:01:44 So we don't get it kind of in the gray area having to make a call whether something will be good at removing contamination or not.
11:01:53 If that makes sense.
11:01:55 Thank you, Fannie.
11:02:08 I don't see any other hands, so let's go ahead and move on. If you don't mind switching back to that document, Caleb.
11:02:35 Refund, but it deals with record keeping and reporting. And the question is, what level of record keeping and reporting should be required for various facility types?
11:02:44 Including exempt facilities if they export finished organics off-site. Do we have any comments on this?
11:03:09 And again, if there's anything here that you want to comment on later, you absolutely can submit us a written comment to the comment page.
11:03:20 I see Jessica. Will this include record keeping and reporting requirements for schools?
11:03:34 I don't actually know the answer to that.
11:04:01 Someone on the team said that this does not include reporting requirements for schools, only for solid waste handling facilities.
11:04:12 Thanks for the question.
11:04:22 Heather, feel free to unmute yourself.
11:04:26 I don't know if this is related to this particular topic. I can barely hear, but I do want to just put in a comment today and I'll follow up with this in another session but um that pesticide residuals
11:04:45 Thank you.
11:04:51 I don't see another hand, so we'll go ahead and move on to training at facilities.
11:04:56 Currently, facility supervisors responsible for daily operation at compost facilities must have specific training And the trained supervisor may provide training for other employees.
11:05:07 So here's the questions. What level of training such as additional going on ongoing training should be required.
11:05:16 And what level would be the desired outcome from such training?
11:05:21 And then second question, what level of training should be required at different organic management facility types?
11:05:27 Including some under permit exemption, exporting finished materials offsite. And then the third question, if there's no certification or training for managing organic materials via vermiculture or other organic management technologies exist.
11:05:45 What would you recommend?
11:06:13 Not seeing any hands. With comments on this type, we'll just give it another minute.
11:06:33 Heather piped in with a comment that says she strongly supports this topic.
11:06:46 And Kit says work CFOT is sufficient. If facilities have issues, permitting agencies should be able to require that they renew their training.
11:06:55 Robbie says, well, there are options for webinars and such. I haven't seen a lot of options for continuing education.
11:07:02 You'll come into establishing training requirements for exempt composter operators.
11:07:12 Adam, would you like to unmute?
11:07:15 Yeah, thanks. Just speaking to Heather's comment there about the pesticide residuals and some responses in the chat.
11:07:22 We identified in our research that Maryland is doing a particularly good job of this. Their Department of Agriculture, I believe.
11:07:33 Partnership with their office state office of the Chemist does extensive testing of compost end products on an annual basis. And they test for a wide variety of contaminants, both macro and chemical, including pesticides. And then they have some mechanisms for following up
11:07:55 With specific facilities that are tied to those contaminants and sometimes with the specific generators as well.
11:08:01 So I just encourage ecology to connect with the folks at Maryland if that's a topic that you'd like to explore more.
11:08:10 Thank you, Adam. Fannie, you had your hand raised for a second, but you put it down. Did you want to speak?
11:08:14 Nice.
11:08:19 Yeah, I was typing it on the chat. I was… wanted to echo Bill and Keith's comments.
11:08:25 That there should be training requirements for exempt composting facilities. In my experience I've noticed that larger composting facilities do a pretty good job of training.
11:08:38 The employees have it dialed down. But however, the smaller we get.
11:08:44 The more challenging training gets. And so a lot of that is because oftentimes they don't have the resources to do the training. I don't know. I have experience in the past where The operators don't speak English and so um
11:09:04 There needs to be some kind of requirements, whether that be something that's standardized by ecology, that would probably be the easiest and most accessible And accessibility is a huge issue for smaller and exempt composters.
11:09:21 Thank you, Finn.
11:09:24 And I do see that McKenna put in the chat that she actually did have a comment on the record. Keep a question. She says, I would like to add that it is important that exempt facilities keep records on sources and destinations and contaminants and materials sent for disposal.
11:09:40 As a local jurisdiction with a jurisdiction with I'm sorry, the bubbles in front of part of your comment.
11:09:48 With flow over non-recyclable and non-compostable materials for disposal, we need to be able to have sufficient records from these facilities to ensure operations do not eschew our municipal disposal requirements or authority.
11:10:16 Oh, and she also clarified she meant the comment to apply to both record keeping and exempt and permitted facilities.
11:10:27 Rebec's comment in the chat, commercial verma compost operations should still need to have clarification. We have one in the state and they will need to meet These WAC laws for finished compost even Though not part of the CFAT, there are topics that are applicable.
11:11:03 Hey, feel free to unmute.
11:11:06 Yeah, the current rule states that, you know, there needs to be training for compost facility operators and there isn't an equivalent for vermicomposting and anaerobic digestion facilities.
11:11:20 You know, as was stated. I think that the requirements like at a bare minimum, the requirements that are set forward for compost facilities should also apply to these other types of organic management facilities.
11:11:39 You know, and I think there's ways to word it in which you know, if there's good training provided in the future for 80 facilities that are not specifically wastewater Treatment plants, which have their own set of training requirements and certification and CEUs, which is an industry standard for so many industries out there, just not compost at this time.
11:12:06 Oddly. That we can just say, you know, you have to do the training requirements that are laid forward for compost facility operators until appropriate.
11:12:18 Drainings are available for these other types of facilities. I don't know if that made any sense.
11:12:27 But hopefully you get the point.
11:12:27 Thank you.
11:12:40 All right, let's move on to the next topic. Caleb, if you could scroll to the next page, please.
11:12:46 So sex part is on permit exemptions The current rule has conditional permit exemptions for several organic material management facilities.
11:12:57 Some permit exemptions are in state law while others are instances where ecology determined an exemption provides sufficient oversight.
11:13:05 Only low risk operations should qualify for an exemption. It is important that the rule creates a fair and equitable business landscape And neither overburdens exempt facilities nor allows exempt facilities to excessively undercut standards required for permit operations.
11:13:22 So two questions here. The first question, what new exemptions, if any, are desired And then what exemptions, if any, need revisions?
11:13:34 And then there's a second part to this. Ecology sees a need for a permit exemption for yard waste debris drop-off locations where yard debris is transferred to an organic management facility within a reasonable time.
11:13:47 One type of drop-off location is a retail landscaping material yard where landscapers may bring full loads throughout the day for consolidation into a larger load.
11:13:58 We are considering time and volume limits for this type of permit exemption to ensure materials move regularly through compost or other type of processing facility Again, two questions here. What time limitation would be appropriate for this exemption?
11:14:13 And secondly, what volume limit would be appropriate? So I'll go ahead and pause here and we'll go ahead and take any comments people have on these topics.
11:14:22 Jay, feel free to unmute.
11:14:26 Great, thanks. A couple of comments on this one. I touched on this earlier when we were doing them.
11:14:32 The three minute talk. I know this isn't a Q&A, but it would be very helpful if ecology could issue a little guidance on what the state law exemptions are and ecology exemption and how that fits together.
11:14:47 I can only speak for Cedar Grove and what we're doing.
11:14:50 We do currently maintain yard debris drop offs under exemptions we you know we have do that undercover.
11:15:00 We have impervious surfaces. We don't accept food waste.
11:15:05 That includes, and we also have leachate control so I think those are good considerations and needs. I think if you've got a building and you've got a good you know, and if you have an exemption Our suggestion is a 72 hour period
11:15:21 For holding and then also holding there's kind of the permit exempt folks but also And I think what ecology is getting at here is drawing a very clear line on if you're a yard debris exempt or another type of facility and making sure that the facilities are
11:15:40 Properly characterized and that there has to be some sort of oversight and enforcement on the facilities that aren't doing what they're permitted or permit exempt to do.
11:15:52 And again. I would reiterate the need for increased clarity and definition on yard debris versus wood waste.
11:16:02 I think the term brush is very problematic because inlane clearing in a lot of ways, and I'm getting in the technical weeds here but those those words are used in a lot of ways and it makes I think what we're trying to get out here was
11:16:21 I'm trying to find where it said, but Oh, fair and equitable business landscape. That's kind of what I'm getting at here so Those are the kind of the points for now.
11:16:31 And thank you very much.
11:16:33 Thank you, Jay.
11:17:06 Neil Edgar, feel free to unmute.
11:17:11 I have a bigger picture. I don't know, question or anyway, I'm not sure exactly how this fits into this.
11:17:19 Framework but in a framework in California this last week.
11:17:24 Calory Cycle issued emergency regulations regarding land application.
11:17:30 Of materials so yard debris Traditionally in Southern California, yard debris has been chipped in ground and land applied and open desert parcels on agricultural land and a little bit in other parts of the state.
11:17:45 That activity has largely impeded the ability to cite composting operations throughout Southern California. There's very little infrastructure there, and that's the primary reason why.
11:17:58 Land application costs the operators something like $10 a ton to deposit it on that property and this property Due to some… considerable public outcry on local community impacts due to that activity. Calrecycle is adopting these emergency regs.
11:18:21 But it's a massive issue and it's a massive issue I would hope that Washington doesn't see that same level of activity, but that is certainly a a way to circumvent getting materials composted and actually use in a more sustainable manner.
11:18:37 And to the extent that these regulatory efforts could help set standards for how much material is allowed to be a land applied.
11:18:46 And the quality of that material, assuring that it meets the same level playing field for pathogen reduction.
11:18:55 Physical contamination. Et cetera, would be an important step in allowing the state to actually move forward on building composting infrastructure and not just creating a situation where organic materials are being diverted from landfill that are having other downstream environmental impacts that are unregulated.
11:19:18 Thank you, Neil. Troy, would you like to unmute?
11:19:25 Thanks. Thanks, Caleb. I just wanted to echo Jay's comments. I agree with him.
11:19:32 And wanted to add a little bit around the exempt process and having more clarification around that.
11:19:38 We compete with exempt facilities who I think it would be helpful for the jurisdictional health departments to have real clarity as to being able to have oversight on those facilities.
11:19:51 Thank you.
11:19:53 Thank you, Troy.
11:20:27 I'm not seeing any other hands up for permit exemptions and we are still doing pretty good on time.
11:20:36 So let's get to just the last part. And these last three questions are just miscellaneous questions that didn't fit nicely under the other categories.
11:20:48 So the first question in the other section, what requirements should be placed on digest state to be beneficially used, whether that be liquids and solids combined or separated?
11:21:02 173-350 WAC with certain organic related terms in statute. What organic related terms would you like to see clarified or added to the rule?
11:21:13 And then finally, what other changes to organic waste standards have we not considered?
11:21:26 This would also be an opportunity For anyone who wants to say something that wasn't already covered, please go ahead and raise your hand and provide your comment.
11:21:42 Kev, I think you were muted, but it looks like Chris has his hand up.
11:21:46 Chris, go ahead and unmute.
11:21:46 Yeah, Chris. Thank you. Thank you, Chris.
11:21:52 Hey, I think we started to talk a little bit about land application and I held off because I thought it would you know we would talk about it with this digestate, this first bullet under the other section Just a couple minor comments there.
11:22:09 I think the most important thing is to acknowledge that there's a variety of different land application uses for Digestate and agricultural users or other users should simply have transparent assurance in what the makeup of digest AD is so that one can understand if it's appropriate you know for for their
11:22:31 Potential selected use. What's more important, it's important to have transparency and also understand what digestate is coming from which type of feedstock rather then outright limit the land application of digestate. Because if you restricted land applications use or digestase use and land application, I should say outright
11:22:57 And without reason. Then it would run counter to the goals of our organics recycling and our circular economy strategies.
11:23:08 Um you know we basically would result in landfilling of digestate which would basically be sending organic material to the landfill and obviously run indirect contrast to the goals of what we're after with HB 1799 And HB 2301. And so instead of
11:23:31 Instead of uh you know pulling out more organics from more digestate and from organic material, we'd basically be diverting it material from the landfill processing it and then putting digestate back in a landfill, which obviously would be very counter
11:23:47 To what we're trying to do. But on the transparency portion, I think if we can probably look to organizations like the American Biogas Council.
11:23:58 They worked with the EPA to create A Digestate certification program.
11:24:06 And basically provide some information on testing parameters And what certification levels are possible.
11:24:19 For different types of digestate and its quality and so What that helps you do is it it helps you a user of Digestate understand if they're getting beadstock from, say, a standalone anaerobic digester that accepts food waste Versus, you know, a digester that
11:24:38 Accept something like poultry or dairy waste or wastewater or anything that, you know, would certainly require more scrutiny and, you know, perhaps, you know, not want to be in every case the type of digestate you would want to land apply.
11:24:54 Testing parameters look at all kinds of things similar to what current composting regulations look at.
11:25:00 Nutrient levels, acidity. Solids and moisture content, salts, metals And especially physical contaminants, which is, again, a big part of why we're all here in this rulemaking process.
11:25:13 Thank you, Chris. Kate, would you like to unmute?
11:25:17 Yeah, I would just like to point out that Washington state has really excellent guidelines regarding digestate quality parameters as they relate to biosolids through the WAC 173308.
11:25:34 There are quality parameters related to the destruction of pathogens, volatile solids reduction, and others.
11:25:45 I started my career in organics recycling industry at least 20 more than 20 years ago now. Wow.
11:25:52 In working in a lab and I saw materials, I was tested compost and digestate and other types of organic residual materials from all over the country all different kinds of feedstocks and the notion that some feedstocks do not have
11:26:08 Pathogens in them because say they're only yard waste is a complete falsehood. And so it's just a very common misconception.
11:26:20 So I would recommend ecology to look very closely at the rules, the safety rules that were established for biosolids because those were largely done Specifically for digestate and as the digestative, you know, it's the digestion of that sewage sludge that creates the biosolids.
11:26:41 So there's excellent. Template to copy there.
11:26:47 Thank you, Kate. Chris, did you have your hand raised is that left over from your previous handbooks.
11:26:54 Sorry, that's a leftover.
11:26:56 No problem.
11:27:23 I don't know if you froze, Caleb. I see Neil has their hand up.
11:27:28 Neil, go ahead.
11:27:31 Thanks. I would wholly disagree with Chris Thomas's perspective on digestate being held to some alternative standard.
11:27:40 As digesters are another pretreatment method for Managing organic materials where they're extracting gas out of those materials largely to produce energy or fuel But to the extent that the solid materials that are residual do not have to meet the same standards as compost or other materials that are being land applied.
11:28:02 You'll note in the chat, I put a picture into the chat and that is That is digestate being land applied.
11:28:12 On desert property in northern Los Angeles County. This is out of a large commercial organic or large commercial anaerobic digester that is processing commercial food waste.
11:28:26 Absent standards for managing that material And having those standards enforced just leads to this kind of activity and I think sets organics processing industry back as a whole.
11:28:40 Most digesters, and we've worked on permitting a number of them here in California.
11:28:46 Fail to build the backend management of those solid residuals into their pro forma.
11:28:53 Those materials are certainly suitable to be transferred to composting operations for further processing to produce quality soil amendments out of them.
11:29:03 And having some sort of, quote, transparency around the material quality isn't adequate. The state needs to set standards on what that quality is.
11:29:13 And make sure that it's being enforced in order to have a level playing field for how organics are managed.
11:29:18 And prevent environmental contamination like this occurring.
11:29:25 Thank you, Neil. Yes, go ahead.
11:29:26 May I respond to that? I just want to clarify that.
11:29:35 What I said is not at all what what I think Neil was characterizing my statement as and Neil, I apologize if that didn't come across as clear as it could have.
11:29:44 I'm not suggesting any kind of lesser standard or or not having a standard for digest aidate. I'm actually proposing quite the opposite what I'm suggesting is that there are good standards in place. They've been developed in collaboration with the EPA.
11:29:58 And if in fact the biosolids that testing for digestate, you know, if that applies, the one that's already in place by ecology we're certainly fine with that. We do already meet that standard.
11:30:11 But what I'm saying is if we're contemplating any new standards on digestate I just thought that we should be transparent and clear transparent and clear And how we do that and how we define those testing parameters.
11:30:26 And how we link certain how we talk about certain feedstocks rather than outright rejecting certain classifications of digestate altogether.
11:30:38 And I just want to make sure that we're transparent with that.
11:30:42 We have standards in place. And we're ensuring that we don't have physical contaminants or any other increase nutrients or or or metals or other types of high levels you know that that you do see with some digestate. And I think the reason we're here is because
11:31:01 You know, to the picture that Neil puts in there there are bad actors that make digestate that have contaminants like that.
11:31:09 Just like there are bad actors that make compost products, finished compost products.
11:31:13 That have a lot of physical contaminants in them. And that's why we're here today. So I just want to clarify It's quite the opposite of what was sort of implied in that last comment.
11:31:23 I'm actually advocating for stricter standards, not a lessening in any way.
11:31:29 Thank you, Chris.
11:31:52 Just reading some of the comments that were dropped in the chat here. Laurel said, circling back to an earlier topic and for the record, source separation by generators is critical for many reasons that were already noted by variety of commenters during this session.
11:32:06 Our team provides outreach and technical assistance to commercial entities needing to comply with OML.
11:32:13 And only should source separation by generators be required, but this needs to be made absolutely clear in the legislation to avoid divergent interpretations by parties of the competing interests.
11:32:24 And then India's comment, ecology should develop testing parameters and handling requirements for digestive materials.
11:32:32 This could be similar to those already required by compost facilities.
11:33:02 And once again, if you have any comments on anything that we've presented on, any questions or anything that we haven't covered, please feel free to raise your hand.
11:33:11 This is your last opportunity for this listening session. But again, you will have additional opportunities to comment In writing, if you'd like to.
11:33:20 Until the end of the comment period.
11:33:46 Absolutely. I'm happy that that helped spur some conversation and additional comments.
11:34:02 Okay, well, I don't see anybody else. So Caleb, if you don't mind going back to the presentation and we'll go ahead and wrap up.
11:34:15 All right. Well, thank you everyone for your attention and participation today.
11:34:18 As a reminder, our informal public comment period will run until 1159 p.m. On March 31st.
11:34:25 Between now and then, you may submit your comments in writing to us by visiting our comment page, which there's a link in a QR code displayed on the screen now for you to be able to visit that.
11:34:34 And if you have questions, please send them to organics rule at ec.wa.gov.
11:34:40 This concludes our public meeting for today. I hope that everyone has a great rest of their day and thank you very much for being here.