![]() |
|
| Home/Current
News Previous Issues Features Equipment Spotlight New Product Showcase Editorial Calendar Advertisements Classifieds Place a Classified Ad Request a Quote Marketing Services Information Resources Events Calendar National Organizations Regional Organizations Auto Organizations General Links Add a Link Search: Advanced Search Contact Us Subscribe Update Subscription |
January 2004New MTBE Cleanup Technology Could Push Stalled Energy BillCarlsbad, CA— Sub-Surface Waste Management of Delaware Inc. (SSWM), an environmental cleanup firm, announced that its cost effective cleanup technology for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) contamination may be an impetus for passing the stalled Energy Bill when congress returns to session in January, 2004. Bruce Beattie, CEO of SSWM, stated, “The MTBE issue in the Energy Bill was a major objection for senators who believe the industry should be responsible for the cleanup of MTBE contamination rather than possible exemption from cleanup. The industry shuns the cleanup possibility because of its estimated $29 billion cleanup price tag based upon the use of 1980’s conventional cleanup technology. I believe the use of new millennium SSWM biotechnology for MTBE cleanup is the wave of the future and its use could significantly reduce the cost of cleanup and thereby reduce the industry objection and possible inclusion for partial cleanup in the Energy Bill. Not only would the MTBE cleanup issue now become more palatable and affordable, its inclusion could foster the passage of the bill in the Senate.” Beattie went on to say, “The SSWM MTBE technology is being used in South Carolina to clean up underground storage tanks that have leaked gasoline containing MTBE. Results have shown significant decreases in time and costs to clean up this contamination, which, if extrapolated to the problem sites in the U.S., could significantly reduce the potential liability for cleanup costs. The problem has to be cleaned up because it impacts our drinking water. If there is an alternative solution which is better, faster and cheaper, then its use should be considered as a way of lessening the cost burden on the industry or the party responsible for the cleanup.” |