The Report of the Royal Commission on Asbestos calls for additional regulation of asbestos in industry, and for selective prohibitions of its use. Current Ontario regulations stipulate maximum 40-hour average exposures, called control limits, in mining and manufacturing. These control limits, stated in so many fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cc), are 0.2 f/cc for crocidolite asbestos, 0.5 f/cc for amosite asbestos and 1 f/cc for chrysotile asbestos. The Commission calls the existing Ontario Regulation Respecting Asbestos "one of the most stringent of any jurisdiction in the world" except for Sweden. This regulation applies in a setting where only chrysotile asbestos has in fact been used since 1980, and about one thousand workers are directly exposed to asbestos in manufacturing, much of it involving automotive brakes.
The Commission recommends that the current limits of 0.2 f/cc for crocidolite and 0.5 f/cc for amosite should be replaced with an outright prohibition of the use of these two types of asbestos in Ontario manufacturing. The Commission has found that the risks of death from asbestos disease faced by workers exposed to crocidolite and amosite for 10 to 25 years at the current control limits are such that they equal or exceed the risks of accidental death faced by workers in some of Ontario's most hazardous industries, for example construction and mining. Current measurement methods and control technology do not make it possible to decrease worker exposures sufficiently to reduce disease risk from crocidolite and amosite to a level at or below the risk of accidental death in the average Ontario manufacturing industry. The Commission estimates that, to achieve such low risks, unattainable control limits of 0.02 f/cc for crocidolite (one-tenth the current Ontario limit) and 0.1 f/cc for amosite (one-fifth the current Ontario limit) would be necessary. Given the impossibility of ensuring that maximum exposures to crocidolite and amosite will not exceed these levels, the Commission recommends prohibition.
As for chrysotile asbestos, the Commission draws a sharp distinction between the use of chrysotile asbestos in general manufacturing and the use of chrysotile in textile manufacturing. Chrysotile asbestos has been the only kind of asbestos used in Ontario manufacturing since 1980, and is the only kind of asbestos mined in Canada. The Commission finds that the disease risk associated with chrysotile asbestos in textile manufacturing is likely to be so high that the use of chrysotile in such manufacturing should be prohibited. The control limit required to reduce the risk of chrysotile in textile manufacturing to acceptable proportions is estimated to be 0.04f/cc and is unattainable.
On the other hand, the disease risk that the Commission associates with chrysotile asbestos in general manufacturing and mining is much lower, so that here the current control limit of 1 f/cc is appropriate if it is properly enforced. While there is no significant chrysotile mining in Ontario at this time, chrysotile is used in manufacturing activities that employ about 1,000 Ontario workers, most of them in the automotive brakes industry.
The Commission endorses the Ministry's 1 f/cc control limit in chrysotile manufacturing other than textiles. According to the Commission, a 1 f/cc control limit, when carefully applied and enforced, means that average worker exposure will in fact be 0.5 f/cc. The Commission suggests improvements whereby the Ontario regulation can further ensure that an average worker exposure of 0.5 f/cc is being achieved. It makes some two dozen recommendations in this regard, many of them on technical matters such as measurement methods and sampling procedures. The Report also stresses that workers must be informed of the risks they face and be involved in the application of the regulation, including the measurement of fibre levels.
With respect to enforcement, the Commission favours a special Ministry approach to all substances designated as capable of causing workplace disease. In particular, its Report recommends the creation of a Designated Substances Enforcement Unit, which should be headed by an official whose professional background includes training in investigative procedures. Other than for this official, the proposed Unit does not, in the Commission's view, require that the Ministry of labour increase its size. The Ministry already has the services of an appreciable number of highly trained professionals who are specialized in occupational health. The Enforcement Unit would consist of teams of these experts assembled by its directing official to make thorough, special and unannounced inspections of workplaces in which asbestos and other designated substances are in use.