Eleven years ago a new method of cleaning up toxic spills and polluted soil and groundwater was proven effective. The technique, which involves injecting steam into a grid or circle of deep wells while vacuum-pumping dissolved or vaporized pollutants from a central deep well, pulled 7600 gallons of gasoline from a plume about 120 feet under the surface in one year. Previously, such cleanup was expected to take about 30 years by digging and incinerating. In another case, after environmental regulators found that upwards of one million pounds of creosote from a utility pole yard had soaked deeply into the soil, threatening the groundwater in Visalia, CA, this method extracted 900,000 lbs in 16 months and should have the site completely clean by the end of next year. This is nearly a CENTURY ahead of schedule, given that the standard methods were bringing up only 500 lbs per year.

About one quarter of all the EPA Superfund Cleanup Sites COULD have been cleaned up about eight years ago using this method. Todays annual "bill for cleanup" runs $9 billion dollars and continues to grow, yet even INVESTIGATION of innovative methods for removing existing pollutants is thwarted. So far, apart from the ongoing trials, there is NO NEW USAGE of this technique.

The fast cleanup requires spending about half of the estimated cleanup budget in the first year, but you finish in two years. As opposed to spreading liability over a CENTURY or more, keeping the annual costs low, as all the while the solvents, gasoline, heavy oil, PCB's etc. soak deeper and spread further.

Allow me to quote directly from the Feb 99 issue of Scientific American:

"Regulators require companies to report to shareholders ONLY their annual cleanup costs, not their total environmental liability. Given the choice between spending $25 million on a risky but fast cleanup that will deplete a company's cash reserves and hurt it's stock prices or paying lawyers $1 million a year to delay, any sensible CEO will choose the latter.