Introduction
All chemical reactions involve energy changes for the reactions to take place. The energy changes are generally the activation energy that initiates the reaction, and the energy of the reaction. The energy of the reaction is the energy produced by the reaction or the energy that is consumed by the reaction. The reactions that generate energy are known as exothermic reactions whereas the reactions that use energy in order to take place are known as endothermic reactions.
The majority of the chemical reactions are exothermic, which usually liberate the energy in form of heat, light or sound (Urben, 2007, p. ix). In an industrial situation, the reactions are usually controlled in order to enable the industry to produce the desired products from the reactions. The reactions are also controlled so as to control the amount of energy that is released by the reactions, as in some cases, the energy may be so high in order to cause much destruction to the industry.
As explained above, the reactions of the chemicals should ideally take place in an industry where the reactions are controlled. However, several cases of the reactions, mostly exothermic are taking place freely in an area that is not controlled, thereby causing great damage to the environment, people, and property. There are several factors, which lead to the taking place of the reactions.
The accidents which occur due to the reactive hazards have raised the questions as to whether the government and other relevant institutions should impose strict regulations on the handling of the reactive hazards so as to reduce the number of accidents that occur due to the reactive hazards. This paper would give detailed information on why the reactive hazards should be better controlled by the chemical industry and better regulated by the relevant regulating bodies.
Handling of reactive materials without knowing the real hazards
On May 8, 1987, employees of BPS, a bulk storage and distribution facility, observed smoke coming out of the building. The company was at the time involved in the repackaging of an organic pesticide known as AZM50W. In this case, the company called the fire department, which responded swiftly. As the firefighters were trying to locate the source of the smoke, the exercise turned fatal as a collapsing wall smashed and killed three firefighters, as well as causing serious injuries to one more.
The major source of the fire was later hypothesized to be due to the decomposition of the sacks that were used to pack the pesticide, as they had been placed near a hot compressor discharge pipe. The sacks produced flammable vapor, which resulted in the smoke and the subsequent fire. The facility and the organic pesticide were not covered by any regulation by the regulatory bodies (US Chemical Safety Board, 2002, 42).
The above case is just one of the examples of cases where materials that are deemed unreactive and hence not covered by the relevant regulatory bodies have led to various accidents and damage to property. Generally, all chemicals are reactive when exposed to certain chemicals. The chemicals may not be reactive when in a state where they are not exposed to other chemicals. Various other chemicals that are considered unreactive have caused insurmountable damage to property and the environment. Most of these chemicals are generally handled and stored carelessly, as they do not contain compounds, which are considered reactive.
Another good illustration to show that hazardous chemicals handling should be regulated is a case where dry swimming pool chemicals caused an explosion that later led to great damage. Rainwater leaked in the room where the chemicals were stored, resulting in an explosion. The swimming pool chemicals are generally considered safe for handling, and hence the regulatory bodies and the industries have not put strict measures to control their handling (CCPS, 2001, p. 2). The industries and other regulatory bodies should, therefore, put strict measures to regulate the usage of the chemicals. The industries should clearly indicate the hazards that the chemicals pose to enable people who handle the chemicals to effectively handle them and ensure that no accidents take place.
Accidents due to ignorance
June 4, 1999, witnessed another horrifying tragedy when delivery of sodium hydrosulfide to Whitehall Leather Company coincided with another delivery of pickle acid (ferrous sulfate), two reactive chemicals when they come into contact with each other. The supervisor of the facility, therefore, thought that the chemical was pickle acid and therefore directed the driver of the truck to offload the chemical into the tank which was used for pickle acid storage. Offloading of the material led to the reaction between the pickle acid and the sodium hydrosulfide. The reaction led to the production of hydrogen sulfide, a very poisonous gas. Exposure of the gas to the truck driver led to the death of the truck driver and injury to one of the employees (US Chemical Safety Board, 2002, p. 50).
On February 19, 1999, Concept Sciences Inc was in the process of producing a 50 wt-percent batch of aqueous hydroxylamine (HA). After the distillation of the HA was complete, the process was shut down. However, during the shutting down of the process, the concentration of one of the tanks was 86 wt-percent. This was despite the fact that HA has been proven to explosively decompose at a concentration that is lower than the prevailing concentration.
HA decomposes explosively at a concentration of 85 wt-percent. Therefore, since the concentration of the HA was higher than the concentration which generally considered to lead to explosive decomposition; the tank which contained the HA should, therefore, have exploded. The resulting explosion led to the complete destruction of the industrial facility and damage to property in the nearby residential areas (US Chemical Safety Board, 2002, p. 52). An investigation by a regulatory body later found out that the company had not adequately evaluated the hazards posed by HA during the development of the process.
The above cases illustrate a scenario where the ignorance of a worker or a company that was handling the chemical led to the death and injury of other people who were within the vicinity of the area in which the poisonous reaction was taking place. The relevant party may have led to the occurrence of the accident knowingly or unknowingly. The material that the worker was handling may have been reactive or unreactive.
These cases are further proof of why the handling of hazardous materials should be closely regulated by the chemical industry and other relevant regulatory bodies. The bodies should ensure that they impose stiff penalties on people who cause accidents due to their negligence in the handling of materials that are considered hazardous.
Accidents due to uncontrolled industrial reactions
On April 8, 1998, Morton International, Inc was in the process of production of Automate Yellow 96 dye. During the production of the chemical, there was a rapid uncontrolled rise in the temperature in 2000 containers in which ortho-otrochlorobenzene and 2-ethylhexylamine were being reacted to yield the compound. The reaction led to the release of inflammable materials that eventually led to a fire and explosion at the facility. The accident led to the injury of nine employees of the company, damage to the facility and release of hazardous material into the environment (US Chemical Safety Board, 2002, p. 33).
The above accident was caused by the uncontrolled reaction, which occurred in an industrial facility. This accident is the basis of why the industries manufacturing compounds, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, should monitor their processes closely and ensure that the processes are closely controlled to prevent deadly accidents from occurring. The regulatory bodies should, therefore, ensure that they put measures that will ensure that the companies closely monitor the processes taking place in the industry so as to prevent the occurrence of accidents, which may not only affect the industry concerned, but also other people and the environment in the vicinity of industry.
Conclusion
The reactive hazards should be closely regulated by the regulatory bodies or the industries that handle the products. The regulatory bodies should also ensure that they include other materials, which are generally considered unreactive to prevent accidents, which may be caused by handling the material by people who do not know the hazards posed by the compound.
References
CCPS. (2001). Reactive Material Hazards: What you need to know. CCPS. Web.
Urben, P. G. (2007). Bretherick’s handbook of reactive chemical hazards. Delhi: Surendra Kumar.
US Chemical Safety Board. (2002). Hazard Investigation: Improving reactive hazard management. US Chemical Safety and Investigation Board. Web.