Deterioration of submarine metal objects

This is in response to Vera B. Espinola's query as to the morphology
of the rusticles observed on the hull of the RMS Titanic.

Back in 1993 I had a few consultation contacts with the salvor of
the wreck whom had brought the first artifacts removed into the
international terminal in Norfolk, Virginia because that was the
locus of their court action in the district admiralty court in
claiming the entire wreck for salvage.

To make a long story short they simply dumped the artifacts into
plywood enclosures lined with blue PVC pool liner and left the
objects to sit in a warehouse in the sweltering Virginia summer with
no maintenance. When I observed them a few weeks after their
recovery many large artifacts were half-submerged with a nasty
yellow foam in the water as support and most of the small finds were
stored in half-filled tupperware in mixed media (ie., glass,
ceramic, metal, organic).  Artifacts such as intact champagne
bottles had been left to dry and wrapped in bubble-wrap. Many
organic artifacts had turned black with bacteriological growth.

In subsequent conversations with these folks it became apparent that
their interest was in having a profitable "blockbuster" touring
exhibition and not in preservation or in the science of deep water
deterioration.  One individual on their team did have an interest in
studying the morphology of metals corrosion--Stepanne Pennac.  At
that time, he related that they had done some sampling from the hull
and from some of the finds--I have not seen the published results of
his research. I did inquire as to whether they had done any
monitoring of the environmental/chemical condition at the site, ie.,
salinity, current flow rate, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
pressure, etc.  And, of course, they had not.

I got quickly disgusted with the whole affair, wrote to Dr. Robert
Ballard, the discover of the titanic, and have spent the intervening
years being occasionally interviewed about the mess by various
reporters--the most recent in a feature article in the Nov./Dec.
issue of Civilization magazine. I have always made a point of
talking specifically as to what I observed in 1993 and not on
speculating as to the current condition of the artifacts, nor on
their storage or exhibition conditions.

I found it a bit ironic to see a full-page ad in Discover magazine
and the Washington Post two years ago, advertizing RMS. Titanic coal
for sale--for $25 you received your piece of valuable stoker coal in
a cheesy vitrine with a plaque declaring the recipient a
"Conservator"!

To answer your query:

I would not be surprised to find that bacteria might indeed be the
source of the hull corrosion--various metal-fixing bacteria can
account for over 25% of corrosion phenomena in soils (most of the
data is from corrosion studies for buried pipelines).  There is
probably a wealth of corrosion information for relatively
shallow-water environments for underwater pipelines and for oil
rigs--I am not sure if anyone has done any work on deep water sites
comparable to that of the RMS Titanic (perhaps the Navy has).  Your
best best is to locate a local corrosion scientist (member of NACE)
or a local university engineering dept. and do a literature search
(you probably will not find much in the conservation literature).
You can also contact Dr. Ballard's new research institute in Mystic
Conn. for references.  You might want to contact Dr. Michael McNeil,
whom is on the ARCH-METALS list as bacteriological corrosion is one
of his specialties.

David Harvey
Associate Conservator,
Metals & Arms
The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
P.O. Box 1776
Williamsburg, Virginia  23187-1776  USA
757-220-7039

                                  ***
                  Conservation DistList Instance 11:54
               Distributed: Wednesday, December 17, 1997
                       Message Id: cdl-11-54-005
                                  ***