HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS : Under fire conditions: Oxides of carbon, Oxides of sulfur 11.
Other Material Safety Data Sheet information regarding decomposition of dispersant. The data sheet indicates these are the decomposition products that are produced and the method of decomposition is by fire.
Stability Indicator: YES
Stability Condition To Avoid: HEAT, FLAME, SPARKS, STATIC ELECTRICITY OR OTHER SOURCES OF IGNITION.
Materials To Avoid: STRONG OXIDIZING AGENTS
Hazardous Decomposition Products: SMOKE FUMES, CO, CO2
Corexit 9527/9500 MSDS
"The reaction proceeds satisfactorily at temperatures from 20°-120° C. 248 ºF, preferably from 70°-90° C. 194 ºF, but below the decomposition point of the reactants and products."
Temperatures of metathesis of decomposition are noted above as referenced in the United States Patent 4159956 of Succinimide dispersant combination. This details the breakdown of the chemical components and their processes. Patented by De Vries, Louis (Greenbrae, CA) Chevron Research Company (San Francisco, CA) Publication Date 07/03/1979
United States Patent of Succinimide Dispersant Combination
Mammalian Toxicology - Acute. Data on acute mammalian toxicity were reviewed, and
the findings indicate a low concern for acute toxicity.
Mammalian Toxicology - Mutagenicity. Data from bacterial reverse mutation assays and in vitro and in vivo chromosome aberration studies were reviewed. The findings indicate a low concern for mutagenicity.
As you can see here the information contained in material safety data sheet regarding reverse mutation is in direct conflict on the submission to the EPA, in the following document; in that the plankton release oxygen under normal environmental standards, when the dispersant is introduced the byproduct of that bacteria bio-degradation - NOT to be confused with the bio-degradation of the chemical, produces cO2. The bio-degradation and metathesis stasis of the chemical can only be achieved under great amounts of heat.
The degradation of the plankton is a normal process but is also accelerated by heat, as also stated in further detail as follows:
Photo-degradation is not expected to cause significant physical degradation of succinimide dispersants.
With this being said, it further goes to mention that the bacteria will not remove a significant amount of the chemicals from the water, their bodies will be contaminated with said containments and drop to the ocean floor releasing c02 from the mutation instead of oxygen, save for what is sucked up into the atmosphere by this process that "is not expected" to happen - they knew this and it is clearly stated in the document it was not a 100% process.
Aquatic Toxicology. Data on acute fish toxicity, acute invertebrate toxicity, and alga toxicity were reviewed and the findings indicate little to no toxicity.
EPA was blatantly lied to as we have seen the results and the fish kills. The only thing partially true about this statement is alga are immune to it, they will eat it but it reverses a process through mutation that our planet and we as humans thrive on. As further stated and confirmed by the following admission:
Table 5. Evaluation of Environmental Fate Information for Succinimide Dispersants
CAS Number Biodegradability Atmospheric Oxidation Available Data & Proposed Testing
OH-Rate Constant (cm3/molec-sec) Half-life (hrs)
67762-72-5 No testing needed Bridging from CAS Number 84605-20-9 368.9E-12 0.3
84605-20-9 16% biodegraded after 28 days 214.8E-12 0.6
Biodegradation data for the succinimide dispersant category are summarized in Table 5.
The Modified Sturm Test (OECD Guideline 301B, CO2 Evolution Test) was used to evaluate the biodegradability of bis alkenyl succinimide derivative (CAS # 84605-20-9). After the 28-day test, the extent of biodegradation was 16% based on carbon dioxide evolution. The results indicate that this substance is poorly biodegraded.
This article was approved January 24th, 2007
FINAL SUBMISSION For SUCCINIMIDE DISPERSANTS Prepared by The American Chemistry Council Petroleum Additives Panel Health, Environmental, and Regulatory Task Group
What history do we know about, which we can learn from, that should be reviewed in any instance before something like this is approved and used in case comparison?
The isolated location of the grounding and rough seas hampered cleanup efforts for the two weeks following the incident. As mandated in the "Polmar Plan", the French Navy was responsible for all offshore operations while the Civil Safety Service was responsible for shore cleanup activities. Although the total quantity of collected oil and water reached 100,000 tons, less than 20,000 tons of oil were recovered from this liquid after treatment in refining plants.
The nature of the oil and rough seas contributed to the rapid formation of a "chocolate mousse" emulsification of oil and water. This viscous emulsification greatly complicated the cleanup efforts. French authorities decided not to use dispersants in sensitive areas or the coastal fringe where water depth was less than 50 meters. Had dispersant been applied from the air in the vicinity of the spill source, the formation of mousse might have been prevented.
At the time, Amoco Cadiz incident resulted in the largest loss of marine life ever recorded from an oil spill. Mortalities of most animals occurred over the two months following the spill. Two weeks following the accident, millions of dead mollusks, sea urchins, and other bottom dwelling organisms washed ashore. Diving birds constituted the majority of the nearly 20,000 dead birds that were recovered. The oyster mortality from the spill was estimated at 9,000 tons. Fishermen in the area caught fish with skin ulcerations and tumors. Some of the fish caught in the area reportedly had a strong taste of petroleum.
Although echinoderm and small crustacean populations almost completely disappeared, the populations of many species recovered within a year. Cleanup activities on rocky shores, such as pressure-washing, also caused habitat impacts. Amoco Cadiz spill was one of the most studied oil spills in history. Many studies remain in progress.
This was the largest recorded spill in history and was the first spill in which estuarine tidal rivers were oiled. No follow-up mitigation existed to deal with asphalt formation and problems that resulted after the initial aggressive cleanup. Additional erosion of beaches occurred in several places where no attempt was made to restore the gravel that was removed to lower the beach face.
Many of the affected marshes, mudflats, and sandy beaches, were low-energy areas.Evidence of oiled beach sediments can still be seen in some of these sheltered areas. Layers of sub-surface oil still remain buried in many of the impacted beaches.
Amoco Cadiz France 1978