Comments on: GAO Says EPA CRT Rule Is MIA http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/395 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mike Deal http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/395/comment-page-1#comment-20554 Mike Deal Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:06:11 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=395#comment-20554 EPA hasn't always been such a pushover: Back in 1995 they seized a decommissioned ex-Navy light carrier in that was being towed for scrapping to India without remediation of the toxic substances on board after efforts by a veterens organization to turn it into a museum failed. The year before when my old company, Resource Recovery, exported the ex-USS Bennington as scrap, EPA Region 9 made us survey and take out everything that was subject to TCSA and RCRA, which was just fine with us: The remediation process disrupted all functioning systems to the extent tnat the Navy and DLA signed a certificate that it was a hulk fit only for reclamation of the metal, and I exported said hulk of the ex-USS Bennington as "G-DEST", much to the chagrin of ODTC, upon the strength of a CCAT from BXA to that effect. EPA hasn’t always been such a pushover: Back in 1995 they seized a decommissioned ex-Navy light carrier in that was being towed for scrapping to India without remediation of the toxic substances on board after efforts by a veterens organization to turn it into a museum failed. The year before when my old company, Resource Recovery, exported the ex-USS Bennington as scrap, EPA Region 9 made us survey and take out everything that was subject to TCSA and RCRA, which was just fine with us: The remediation process disrupted all functioning systems to the extent tnat the Navy and DLA signed a certificate that it was a hulk fit only for reclamation of the metal, and I exported said hulk of the ex-USS Bennington as “G-DEST”, much to the chagrin of ODTC, upon the strength of a CCAT from BXA to that effect.

]]>