Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Asbestos Aggregate Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears House Bill 1857 to exempt naturally occurring asbestos in commercial aggregates
Summary
House Bill 1857 would exempt naturally occurring asbestos in commercial aggregates, asphalt and concrete materials from some prohibitions established under the Building Material Enabling Act; industry and labor supported the bill as a clarification, while public-health advocates urged tighter bounds.
House Bill 1857 received a public hearing in the House Environment & Energy Committee. Sponsor Representative Lee described the bill as a technical clarification to avoid unintended consequences of a prior law that restricted asbestos-containing building materials. "This is about rocks and aggregates that are used in construction," Representative Lee said, arguing that naturally occurring asbestos in aggregate is present at low concentrations and that an exemption would enable local use of aggregate and lower construction costs.
Michael Tran, representing the Aggregate and Concrete Association, said the industry was concerned that the 2020 enactment of the Building Material Enabling Act inadvertently covered naturally occurring asbestos in rock used for aggregate. He said other jurisdictions including California and Canada provide exemptions for naturally occurring asbestos and called for parity to avoid large cost and supply impacts to construction.
Ray Dumas, representing Operative Plasters and Cement Masons Local 528, supported the bill as a clarifying amendment that would align commercial aggregate usage with residential aggregate practices.
Heather (Zero Waste Washington), a geologist, testified in opposition unless the bill were tightened. She said naturally occurring asbestos exists in pockets but cautioned that the current bill language lacked bounds and could allow material with higher asbestos content to be used without clear concentration limits. "I would be okay with this bill if it was significantly bounded and not just sort of the way it is worded right now," she said.
Committee members asked for comparative statutory language from California and other jurisdictions; Representative Klobach asked the sponsor to provide the exemption language used elsewhere. No committee vote occurred at the hearing; the committee closed the record and adjourned.
Testimony focused on balancing construction-cost and supply concerns for locally sourced aggregates against worker- and community-health precautions in demolition and reuse of concrete.
