The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are in disagreement again, this time over EPA\u2019s role over the implementation of identified CUC projects with the upcoming selection of the Engineering and Environmental Management Company, which will have the power to expeditiously complete the projects. <\/p>\n
CUC, through counsel James S. Sirok, has filed a motion, requesting the U.S. District Court for the NMI to clarify the court\u2019s order as they relate to the management responsibilities of the EEMC over the various projects directed and mandated by \u201cstipulated order number 2.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sirok raised the question before the court whether the EEMC order is to be construed to mean that the EEMC is responsible for the implementation and management of all EPA identified 13 SO2 projects during the term of its contract.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe reason that CUC is raising the issue now is that it is crucial that all parties and the selected EEMC understand the scope of the EEMC\u2019s duties and responsibilities prior to executing a contract to perform services under the order,\u201d Sirok said.<\/p>\n
The SO2 projects include the CUC pipeline; tank erection cleanout and testing; secondary containment; and used oil disposal, and others.<\/p>\n
Sirok said under the provisions of the EEMC order, CUC believes that the EPA does not have the authority to micro-manage the SO2 projects and SO2 project management responsibilities of the EEMC.<\/p>\n
In EPA\u2019s response, U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section senior attorney Bradley R. O\u2019Brien said CUC\u2019s position that EPA does not have the authority to direct whether the EEMC, CUC, or EPA will implement SO2 projects is incorrect.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Brien said CUC\u2019s self-described \u201c13 SO2 projects\u201d are not part of the EEMC order but are among the projects required under SO2, which the EEMC order expressly did not modify, preclude, or impact.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Brien said the EEMC order provides EPA general authority to prioritize projects, select the entity to implement the project, and oversee the work.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs the regulatory environmental agency, the EEMC order provides EPA a substantial role in selecting the projects that will be implemented by the EEMC and overseeing how the work is implemented,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Brien said it appears that CUC is attempting to leverage the EEMC order to resolve CUC\u2019s numerous contracting issues relating to its failures to implement SO2 projects.<\/p>\n
O\u2019Brien said CUC\u2019s motion seeks to place CUC\u2019s longstanding contract disputes involving numerous parties on the EEMC\u2019s shoulders without the consent of the EEMC or the contractors.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe impact of CUC\u2019s position is not supportable and would result in imposing CUC\u2019s contracts upon the court, the court\u2019s relationship with the EEMC, and undermining available funding,\u201d the EPA counsel added.<\/p>\n
In CUC\u2019s reply, Sirok said the conduct of \u201cselecting\u201d the projects that will be implemented by EEMC is drastically different than the conduct of \u201cprioritizing\u201d the projects that will be implemented by the EEMC.<\/p>\n
\u201cSimply put, there is no provision in the EEMC order which clearly states that EPA has the ability to unilaterally select which SO2 projects the EEMC will implement and manage,\u201d Sirok said.<\/p>\n
Last September, U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge David O. Carter approved a settlement agreement entered by EPA, CUC, and the CNMI government that will require the CNMI government to, among other things, deposit over $22.8 million until 2018 to complete some stalled CUC projects.<\/p>\n
The order gave parties 45 days to submit proposed potential EEMCs for court approval. The judge extended the deadline by an additional 23 days upon the parties\u2019 request.<\/p>\n
The appointment of EEMC shall be for five years, unless terminated earlier with the court\u2019s approval. <\/p>\n
From 15 interested candidates for EEMC position, EPA has reportedly narrowed down to three firms that are being provided for the court\u2019s consideration. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Commonwealth Utilities Corp. and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are in disagreement again, this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94,4],"tags":[26,49,112,352],"class_list":["post-187607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-headlines","category-local-news","tag-cnmi","tag-cuc","tag-environmental-protection-agency","tag-epa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187607","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}