Committee considers expanding L&I rulemaking authority for asbestos worker certification
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate Bill 61 88 would remove a statutory limit that forces the Department of Labor and Industries to adopt only federal-equivalent asbestos certification rules; sponsors and L&I testified the change would let the state require stronger training for worker and supervisor certification to protect workers.
Senate Bill 61 88, an agency-request bill from the Department of Labor and Industries, drew a mix of support and concern at the committee hearing Feb. 20 over whether the state should be able to set asbestos worker and supervisor certification standards more stringent than federal requirements.
Trudy Stango summarized the bill as removing the statutory provision that limits L&I’s rulemaking to only those rules "specifically required" to make state standards as stringent as applicable federal laws. "The Department of Labor and Industry adopts rules for asbestos certification," Stango said, "however, the statute currently says that L&I's rulemaking authority is limited to rules that are specifically required. SB 61 88 removes that provision."
Senator Victoria Hunt, the bill sponsor, framed the measure as a worker-safety proposal aimed at ensuring supervisors and removal crews are properly trained and experienced. She cited a recent L&I enforcement action in which a Seattle-area contractor was found to have “willfully ignored the rules” by exposing workers to asbestos without adequate respirators and decontamination procedures.
Tammy Fellan, representing L&I, told the committee the agency supports the bill because it would give the state latitude to set training and certification standards that protect workers: "It is about how workers and supervisors should be trained to protect themselves and the public when they're removing asbestos."
Opponents and some industry witnesses, including Mike Ennis of the Building Industry Association of Washington, urged limits on the change. Ennis opposed removing the statutory restriction outright and asked the committee to consider an amendment that would let L&I adopt specific models such as the EPA Model Accreditation Plan rather than broad, unchecked authority.
Committee members posed questions about jurisdiction for federal facilities and facility ownership, and L&I staff clarified that federal employees and federal facilities may remain under federal jurisdiction while private contractors working in federal facilities could fall under state training requirements depending on the employer relationship.
The hearing closed without a committee vote on the bill; members proceeded to executive session to consider other items.