Committee Hears Bill Narrowing Asbestos Definition for Aggregates, Citing Cost and Safety Trade-offs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 2,605 would raise the statutory threshold for defining asbestos-containing building materials from 0.1% to 0.25% by weight or area and exempt certain commercial aggregates, asphalt and concrete at or below 0.25% from labeling and some prohibitions; sponsors said the change reduces construction costs and supports local quarries, while witnesses said worker protections must remain in place.
Members of the House Environment and Energy Committee heard staff and industry testimony on House Bill 2,605, which would revise the statutory threshold that defines "asbestos-containing building material" and exempt certain commercial aggregates.
Matt Sterling, staff to the committee, said current law defines asbestos-containing building materials as any material containing 0.1% asbestos by weight or area; HB 2,605 would change that threshold to 0.25% and exclude commercial aggregates, asphalt and concrete materials at 0.25% or less of naturally occurring fibrous silicate material from labeling requirements, prohibitions on use in new construction or renovations, and certain inspection and management-plan requirements.
Representative Lee, the bill’s sponsor, said the change would "allow these products to be used in construction, making the building of new homes, new apartments, new roads, and new sidewalks more affordable" by enabling use of local crushed rock and aggregates and reducing long-distance transportation. Lee said the bill seeks to carve out a narrow exemption for very low-level naturally occurring fibrous silicate material while maintaining protections because risks arise mainly from disturbance and airborne fiber release.
Committee members asked about worker safety at quarries and during crushing. Representative Rammell asked whether crushing could produce dust and exposure for facility workers; Representative Lee replied that quarry operators would perform testing and protect workers. In testimony, Michael Tranzu of the Washington Aggregate and Concrete Association said the bill is based on California and British Columbia precedents and that existing workplace protections (he cited the Mine Safety Act and WISHA) and Mine Safety laws would apply to any dust concerns.
Supporters, including industry trade groups and labor partners, argued the bill corrects a perceived mismatch between labeling/usage rules and naturally occurring fibrous materials in local aggregates. No vote was taken; the committee closed the hearing and moved to caucus.