Xref: utzoo sci.bio:2315 sci.bio.technology:3 sci.environment:2685 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!decwrl!decvax!ima!spdcc!gnosys!gst From: gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.bio.technology,sci.environment Subject: Re: Oil-Eating Bacteria Message-ID: <355@gnosys.UUCP> Date: 18 Sep 89 07:21:48 GMT References: <1989Sep17.193703.6598@cs.rochester.edu> <26170@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Reply-To: gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) Organization: gst's 3B1 - Somerville, Massachusetts Lines: 103 In article <26170@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> chiaravi@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Lucius Chiaraviglio) writes: > In article <1989Sep17.193703.6598@cs.rochester.edu> > yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu.UUCP (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > >With all of the publicity surrounding the Exxon Valdez spill, I was > >wondering what ever happened to the oil-eating bacteria that genetic > >engineers were working on a few years ago. I seem to remember it was > >designed specifically for cleaning up oil spills. > > > >Is it operational yet? If so, why didn't they use it on the Valdez > >spill? If not, when do they expect it to become operational? > > I have often wondered the same thing. As a matter of fact, some > naturally-occurring bacteria eat oil -- I just heard on NPR news (I know, not > the greatest source of information... Hey, whaddaya got against NPR? Their news is as acurate and timely as that of any of the other sources available, for my money. I can't see that their errors (which they're honest enough to admit, when listeners call them on 'em, when letters get read on "All Things Consdidered"'s Thursday program) are any more frequent or serious than those of newspapers of network television. Lay off!! > , but I have heard of naturally-occurring > oil-eating bacteria elsewhere) that one thing tried during the cleanup was to > put fertilizer on oil-coated areas (I don't remember the details) to encourage > growth of these oil-eating bacteria. I heard what I imagine is the story you're referring to on this past Saturday's (9/16) All Things Considered. I think you got the essence of the story (which you quoted in your posting) right. The ATC story on Saturday said that the tests were very successful, and that the technique was being extended to other fouled beaches, but it was really too late in the season to expect much good to come of it, since the bacteria cannot survive the colder weather soon to come. Here's something from Econet's Greenpeace Press-Release conference (gp.press) on the subject, from when the tests were first being initiated: Topic 152 EXXON TO TRY FERTILIZER TO SPEED UP gn:greenlink gp.press 8:27 am May 15, 1989 Subject: EXXON TO TRY FERTILIZER TO SPEED UP NATURAL OIL BREAKDOWN Date: June 6, 1989 Via GreenLink: ============== GEORGE LOBSENZ WASHINGTON (UPI) - Exxon will spread fertilizer on oil-soaked Alaskan beaches in a test effort to accelerate the growth of natural bacteria that break down toxic hydrocarbons from oil, the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday. Under an agreement with the EPA, Exxon will apply nitrogen and phosphorous to about two acres of beach along the southern shore of Snug Harbor on Knight Island, one of the areas of Prince William Sound hardest hit by the 10.9 million gallons of oil spilled by the supertanker Exxon Valdez March 24. The nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients intended to stimulate the growth of native micro-organisms in the sound that "eat" certain toxic elements of the spilled crude oil. The experiment, which is to begin June 8, could result in the breakdown of toxic hydrocarbons within two to three years rather than the five- to 10-year period required under normal circumstances, said Dick Valentinetti, an official in EPA's Office of Research and Development. If successful, EPA officials said they might use the technique in other parts of Prince William Sound as a way to get at oil that has soaked deep into beaches. "The hydrocarbons that would be removed are the ones most likely to affect fish fry and other marine animals because they are the most mobile in the environment," Valentinetti said. EPA officials said treated beaches still would be blackened because the bacteria do not attack tars and other heavier constituents of oil. However, the remaining oil would be less sticky, meaning it would be less likely to coat seals, otters and birds. Exxon, EPA and state officials in Alaska will monitor the experiment to watch for damage to the environment. Valentinetti said there is some concern the fertilizer would enhance the growth of algae, which could choke off other ocean life by gobbling up oxygen in the water. In addition, he said that as bacteria break down hydrocarbons, "secondary" toxic byproducts are released into the environment. If the rate of degradation is accelerated enough, those byproducts could reach harmful levels. The EPA will issue a progress report on the experiment on July 1 and the test is expected to run 90 days. Under the agreement with the EPA, Exxon will pay all the operational costs of the experiment - about $3 million in cash and resources - while EPA will spend $1.6 million for oversight and independent analysis of results. -- Gary S. Trujillo {linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {ima,stech,wjh12,cdp}!gnosys!gst