“While [the U.S. Environment Protection Agency] is pleased that CUC finally has retained a qualified construction manager for this important project, we continue to be concerned about the pace of this project and the completion date for the project,” said Bradley R. O’Brien, in his submitted letter to the federal court, informing Judge David O. Carter for the Central District of California, who is hearing the case.
Also informed of O’Brien’s letter were Deborah Fisher, CUC counsel, and CNMI Attorney General Edward T. Buckingham.
After extended deadlines, CUC could not complete the pipeline project by the March 15, 2012 deadline.
“[N]otwithstanding that the United States Department of the Interior provided CUC with over $2 million to construct the new pipeline, it appears that the March 15, 2012 deadline is in danger as CUC is now apparently proposing that it completes the CUC pipeline in May 2012 — at the cusp of the typhoon season,” O’Brien stated.
Given the proposed schedule, O’Brien said “there is no time available between the pipeline completion and typhoon season for anything to be repaired if testing identifies issues with the new pipeline.”
In addition, O’Brien said, the removal of the old pipeline, which will still contain diesel fuel, is slated to be conducted immediately preceding the typhoon season.
“It is imperative that this activity should not be conducted during the rainy season, as diesel from this pipeline may be difficult to contain,” O’Brien stated.
“EPA continues to have concerns regarding CUC’s management of this project and movement toward construction completion. Though design drawings are being revised, materials have yet to be ordered for the project. The construction contractor has discussed using a minimal amount of staff to implement the project, which is one of the reasons for the long installation time slated on the schedule. It appears to EPA that CUC’s delays in getting this project started have impacted contractor relations and are leading to additional delays in implementation,” O’Brien added.
He said “the court was quite clear at the status conference that it expected CUC’s Sept. 16, 2011 kick-off meeting to be productive,” include all necessary participants, and that the participants should be fully informed and prepared to discuss the essential work for completing the CUC pipeline.
“However, CUC did not meet these expectations,” O’Brien stated.
EPA was informed at that meeting that Smithbridge, the construction contractor, “did not properly staff the meeting because CUC failed to finalize the contract with Smithbridge and failed to issue a notice to proceed,” O’Brien said.
