Implementation of the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System in the Federal Jurisdiction - Pilot Study

Methodology

Pilot Survey Instrument:

The survey instrument was developed by the National WHMIS Office in consultation with Treasury Board and HRDC, Labour Program officials. Part A of the questionnaire dealt with hazard recognition and Part B with hazard communication through WHMIS supplier labels and MSDSs.

The questions were devised to:

1. enable respondents to provide information on specific workplace chemicals that were of greatest concern in their respective workplaces, and
2. obtain the respondents perspectives on the accuracy of WHMIS labels and MSDSs as the primary source of reliable health and safety information including accurate product composition.

The survey instrument was as follows:

Part A -- Hazard Recognition

Q1: In your experience, what are the workplace hazardous materials that pose the highest risks to workers in the workplaces in your organization?

Q2: Identify the nature of work performed as it relates to the hazards identified in question 1?

Q3: Identify the specific occupations related to the work performed identified in question 2?

Q4: What are the associated WHMIS controlled products?

Q5: Are there particular concerns on any of the above?

Part B -- Hazard Communication

Q6: In your opinion supplier MSDSs provide adequate hazard information (Provide any comment if necessary):

1. Rarely (0-20% of the time)
2. Occasionally (20-40% of the time)
3. Sometimes (40-60% of the time)
4. Often (60-80% of the time)
5. Always (80-100% of the time)

Q7: In your opinion supplier labels are adequate (Provide any comments if necessary):

1. Rarely (0-20% of the time)
2. Occasionally (20-40% of the time)
3. Sometimes (40-60% of the time)
4. Often (60-80% of the time)
5. Always (80-100% of the time)

Results

Part A -- Hazard Recognition

Question 1: In your experience, what are the workplace hazardous materials that pose the highest risks to workers in the workplaces in your organization?

Respondents identified 180 substances in response to this first question. WHMIS Class D, (see Appendix A), "Poisonous and Infectious Material", Class B "Flammable and Combustible Material, and Class A "Compressed Gas" were the workplace hazardous materials that, in the view of the respondents, pose the greatest risk in the workplaces in their organizations.

With regards to Class D, a review of the results showed that most of the hazardous materials fall within Subdivision A (Very Toxic) of Division 1 (Materials Causing Immediate and Serious Effects), Division 2 (Materials Causing Other Toxic Effects) and Subdivision B (Toxic Materials) of Division 2 (Materials Causing other toxic effects) (Figure 1, Table II). Results also show that most hazardous materials identified by the respondents under class B "Flammable and Combustible" fall under Division 1 "Flammable Gases" and Division 2 "Flammable Liquids" (Figure 1, Table II).

Table II
Distribution of workplace hazardous materials that in the view of the respondents pose highest risk in their organizations

Classes	Reported	Percentage (%)
Class A - Compressed gases	29	16
Class B - Flammable and combustible
Division 1 - Flammable gases	18	10
Division 2 - Flammable liquids	18	10
Division 3 - Combutible liquids	5	3
Division 4 - Flammable solids	3	2
Division 5 - Flammable aerosols	2	1
Division 6 - Reactive flammable materials	2	1
Class B - Total	48	27
Class C - Oxidizing materials	8	4
Class D - Poisonous and infectious material
Division 1 - Materials causing immediate and serious toxic effects
Subdivision A: Very toxic material	28	16
Subdivision B: Toxic material	4	2
Division 2 - Materials causing other toxic effects
Subdivision A: Very toxic material	25	14
Subdivision B: Toxic material	15	8
Division 3 - Biohazardous infectious material	2	1
Class D - Total	74	41
Class E - Corrosive material	17	9
Class F - Dangerously reactive material	4	2
Total	180	100

Figure 1
Hazardous materials classes that pose the highest risk in federal workplaces

Question 2: Identify the nature of work performed as it relates to the hazards identified in question 1.

Respondents identified a number of activities including sample preparation, chemical analysis, fieldwork and heavy industrial processes and operations. However, the nature of work most often identified by respondents was sample preparation (33%, n=67) and chemical analysis (24%, n=67) (Figure 2).

Question 3: Identify the specific occupations related to the work performed identified in question 2.

Results show that technicians (30%) and technologists (14%) were the most reported specific occupations related to the work performed (Table III). Technicians include laboratory technician, meteorological technician, wildlife technician, field technician, vehicle testing technician, and specimen technician; whereas, technologists include chemical technologists and weather technologists.

Figure 2
Nature of work performed using controlled products in the Federal Government

Table III
Occupations identified to be related the work performed

Occupation	Total Reported	Percentage (%)
Technician	24	30
Technologist	11	14
Scientific	7	9
Chemist	5	6
Forest Research, Biologist	3	4
Engineer, Pilot plant operator, Biochemist	2	3
Service to printing machine, clerical staff, inspectors, base staff, manager, stores persons/facilities, safety officer, supervisor, office worker, management, technical service	1 (each)	1 (each)

Question 4: What are the associated WHMIS controlled products?

Results show that of the 90 controlled products identified by respondents, hydrochloric acid, gasoline, helium, toluene, and acetic acid, acetone, ammonia, chloroform, hexane, and xylene were amongst the most frequently reported, (Table IV).

Question 5: Are there particular concerns on any of the above, (i.e., regarding the issues encompassed by the previous 4 questions)?

A majority of respondents did report concerns. These concerns centred on adherence to and adequacy of exposure limits; use of WHMIS controlled products; exposure to unknown chemicals; development of diseases such as cancer as a consequence of occupational exposure; accuracy and sufficiency of information provided by supplier MSDSs; failure to ensure the availability of MSDSs in the official language of choice and the failure to enforce the regulations in this regard; legislative provisions exempting product categories, particularly consumer products even when purchased in bulk; adequacy of medical monitoring and periodic health evaluations; adequacy of WHMIS education and training; lack of WHMIS awareness in general such as chemical incompatibilities, chemical reactivity, confined spaces and appropriate storage.

Table IV
Controlled products identified by the respondents to be associated with occupations identified in question 3

WHMIS "Controlled Products"	Percentage (%)
Hydrochloric acid	7
Gasoline, helium	6 (each)
Toluene	4
Acetic acid, acetone, ammonia, chloroform, hexane, xylene	3 (each)
Arsenic acid, dichloromethane, ethidium bromide, formaldehyde, hydofluoric acid, methanol, nitric acid, oxygen, phenol, silica	2 (each)
Acetonitrile, acetylene, acids, acrylamide, argon, arsene gas, asbestos, benzene, butane, carbon tetrachloride, caustic potash, chlorine, cuprous chloride, cyclohexane, diazomethane, diesel, E. colie, ethanol, ethionone, ethyl acetate, feron, fluorine gas, halons, hydrogen, hydrogen sulphide, hydroxyquinaline, lead, light hydrocarbons, mercury, pentane, potassium cyanide, sodium hydroxide	1 (each)

Part B -- Hazard Communication

Question 6: In your opinion supplier MSDSs provide adequate hazard information (Provide any comment if necessary):

1. Rarely (0-20% of the time);
2. Occasionally (20-40% of the time);
3. Sometimes (40-60% of the time);
4. Often (60-80% of the time);
5. Always (80-100% of the time)?

Results (Table V) show that a majority of respondents (50%) believe that supplier MSDSs "often" (60 to 80% of the time) provide adequate information, while only 26% of respondents believe that supplier MSDSs "always" (80 to 100% of the time) provide adequate information.

Question 7: In your opinion supplier labels are adequate (Provide any comments if necessary):

1. Rarely (0-20% of the time);
2. Occasionally (20-40% of the time);
3. Sometimes (40-60% of the time);
4. Often (60-80% of the time);
5. Always (80-100% of the time)?

45% responded that WHMIS supplier labels are "often" (60-80% of the time) adequate while 29% of the respondents believed that labels are "always" (80-100% of the time) adequate (Table VI).

Table V
Adequacy of hazard information disclosed on MSDSs

Q6: In your opinion supplier MSDSs provide adequate hazard information
Response	Percentage (%)
A. Rarely (0-20% of the time)	0
B. Occasionally(20-40% of the time)	2
C. Sometimes(40-60% of the time)	7
D. Often (60-80% of the time)	50
E. Always (80-100% of the time)	26
No response	14

 

Table VI
Adequacy of supplier labels

Q7: In your opinion supplier labels are adequate
Response	Percentage (%)
A. Rarely (0-20% of the time)	0
B. Occasionally(20-40% of the time)	2
C. Sometimes(40-60% of the time)	10
D. Often (60-80% of the time)	45
E. Always (80-100% of the time)	29
No response	14