Welded Steel Moment Frame Inspections

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1008-DR
ApplicantLos Angeles County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#037-91031
PW ID#N/A
Date Signed1999-08-24T04:00:00
Citation: Second Appeal by the Los Angeles County for costs related the evaluation and inspection of County owned buildings for damage to their Welded Steel Moment Frames (WSMF).

Cross-Reference: Subject: Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Policy No. 4511.300 PO,EX, Inspection Costs, Engineering evaluations: FEMA Record: no DSRs listed.

Summary: After the Northridge Earthquake, it was discovered that WSMF connections suffered brittle fractures which had not been anticipated when the steel welded connection details were developed, and the codes were written. The County has many buildings constructed with WSMF connections, 22 of which had not been inspected at the time that a FEMA-imposed deadline for submitting for repair funding for such connections expired. The County has appealed stating that they had not been properly informed of (1), the FEMA WSMF Policy, and (2) the August 29, 1997 deadline for submittals.

Issues:The County takes issue with the setting of the August 29, 1997 deadline for submitting evidence of damage to WSMF connections. They claim (1) that the WSMF Policy had not been made known to them until many months after it was issued by FEMA, (2) that FEMA had not informed them of the deadline until only two months before the deadline (and it takes four months to conduct an inspection), and (3) FEMA practice is to cover the costs for detailed inspections and engineering evaluations as eligible costs.

Findings: The WSMF Policy, and FEMA practice in general, places the responsibility on the subgrantee to identify damage and to apply for assistance to FEMA in a timely manner. Generally, FEMA does not fund the costs of looking for damage, except for the administrative allowance, which is a percentage of the costs of repairs. The County failed to submit any evidence concerning how the deadline issue has affected any specific building, and FEMA records do not include any evidence that the buildings affected by the inspection deadline otherwise would have qualified for inspection cost reimbursement under other provisions of the Policy. The appeal is denied.

Rationale: Since the County failed to provide any evidence to support a finding that FEMA eligibility would have been any different had there been no deadline, FEMA finds that there is no basis to the claim that the delays in its being informed of it resulted in the County being denied funding.

Appeal Letter

August 24, 1999

D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023

RE: Welded Steel Moment Frame Inspections, Los Angeles County, FEMA-1008-DR, PA# 037-91031

Dear Mr. Christian:

This letter is in response to your letter of November 6, 1998, forwarding the Second Appeal of the Welded Steel Moment Frame (WSMF) Inspection deadline submitted by the Los Angeles County to OES on September 8, 1998. The applicant has requested funds to reimburse the cost of inspections for damage to welded steel moment frame connections in 22 County buildings, even though they had failed to meet a deadline of August 29, 1997 for such submittals.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, FEMA has determined that there is no evidence that the subject buildings would have qualified for such funding under other provisions of the WSMF Policy and general FEMA eligibility criteria. Thus the late date that the County claims they learned of the Policy and the deadline have had no effect on the eligibility of the subject costs. Accordingly, I am denying the appeal.

Please inform the applicant of this determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,

/S/

Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
Northridge Long Term Recovery Area Office

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the Northridge Earthquake, the subgrantee applied for funding for the inspection and evaluation of 22 Welded Steel Moment Frames (WSMF) structures. Due to the numerous structural damage incidents to WSMF structures caused by the earthquake, FEMA established a policy addressing the eligibility of funding for inspection, evaluation, and repair costs of WSMF connections that is specific to this disaster. This policy dated August 19, 1996, is FEMA's Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 4511.300 PO, EX. The policy states that reimbursement for inspection, evaluation and repair of WSMF connections damaged by the Northridge Earthquake will be in accordance with the Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frames, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 267, August 1995 (Interim Guidelines).

In a letter to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) dated April 14, 1997, FEMA reiterated that OES should ensure that applicants are adhering to the August 19, 1996, WSMF policy. OES responded on May 5, 1997, stating that they neither notified the subgrantee on the applicability of the Interim Guidelines, nor had they received a copy of FEMA's policy prior to the April 14, 1997, FEMA letter.

FEMA responded in correspondence dated May 6, 1997, stressing OES' responsibility in notifying the subgrantee, and pointing out that there had been several meetings with the subgrantees, OES representatives, and members of FEMA since April 1995 regarding WSMF structures. FEMA also notified the subgrantee, via a letter to OES dated June 26, 1997, that FEMA would not advance funds requested for 22 facilities to undertake analytical studies, search for damage, or determine whether welded steel connections are damaged. In addition, the letter indicated that the undertaking of studies for the 22 buildings is subject to an August 29, 1997, deadline (one year from the issuance of the FEMA WSMF policy to OES). The subgrantee did not submit evidence of WSMF connection damage at any of the 22 buildings by the August 29, 1997 deadline.

THE DAMAGE

No specific buildings were listed in the appeal, and no specific references were made to damage that would support the County's case. Since the amount of architectural damage is a fundamental entrance criterion for eligibility of initial inspection costs, the absence of any specific references to building damage is a significant omission.
In the January 1998 OES transmittal letter with the first appeal, OES provided a list of 22 of the County's WSMF buildings and structures.

This OES list included the following:
Alhambra Courts
Compton Superior Court
Criminal Courts Bldg.
DCS-Covina Regional HQ
Downey Municipal Court
East L.A. Court Parking Structure
East L.A. Municipal Court
Edelman Children's Court
Health Administration Bld.
Inglewood Municipal Court
ISD-Lesage Complex 12 story Bldg.
Long Beach M&S Courts
Medical Clinic
Norwalk Superior Court
Page Museum-Hancock Park & Assessor-Newhall Regional Office
Pomona Superior Court
Rancho-Liver Services Lab-12000 Bldg.
Rio Hondo Municipal Court
Sheriff-Admin. Headquarters
Sherif-Lynwood Center Transition
Thos Tidemanson Public Works Bldg.
Van Nuys Branch Court

This list also did not specify the amount of damage. (At the time of the appeal, two buildings, the Van Nuys Municipal Courthouse and the Public Works Headquarters Building, had been pre-approved by FEMA for WSMF inspection costs, and therefore, are not subject to this appeal. The OES letter listed a "Van Nuys Branch Court," and a "Thos Tidemanson Public Works Building." It is not clear whether these are the same or different buildings as those already approved for inspections.)

When DSRs for 19 of the 22 buildings on the OES list were reviewed (two on the list are subject to the confusion listed above), the damage identified in the DSRs consisted almost exclusively of interior damage of a cosmetic variety. No exterior damage is identified, and very little in the way of exterior repairs is included in the DSRs.

DSRs WRITTEN

Since no individual buildings were listed as part of the appeal, no DSR numbers need be listed here. As for the 19 buildings on the OES list cited above subject to this appeal, the range of permanent repair costs was $0 to $250,000. All but one were under $100,000, and that one was higher because of the replacement of a single glass block wall in the "entry rotunda."

FIRST APPEAL

The subgrantee submitted the first appeal to OES in a letter dated November 13, 1997. OES forwarded the first appeal to FEMA in correspondence dated October January 9, 1998. The subgrantee appealed FEMA's August 29, 1997 deadline to perform and submit studies showing welded connection damage stating that the deadline was unrealistic and impossible to meet. The subgrantee requested a time extension until December 1998 to complete all the building analyses. Due to the lack of extenuating circumstances warranting a time extension beyond the August 29, 1997 deadline, FEMA denied the first appeal.

SECOND APPEAL REQUEST

FEMA had set a deadline of August 29, 1997, for submittal of scope of work and cost estimates for determination of eligibility of WSMF inspection and repairs for FEMA funding. This date was one year after the issuance of the WSMF Evaluation and Repair Policy (Policy). Apparently OES did not forward the Policy or any information about it until the Spring of 1997 - and then only after FEMA had insisted that it be done in a letter dated April 14, 1997.
In a September 8, 1998, letter to OES, the Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office (County) submitted a second appeal of the FEMA determination regarding the deadline for submitting WSMF connection damage reports for twenty two facilities. OES forwarded the second appeal to the Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office in correspondence dated November 6, 1998. The County complains that the subject Policy and knowledge of the deadline had not been forwarded to them until almost two months before the deadline. Since such inspections take about four months to complete, they claim that they have been denied FEMA funding that they otherwise would have been entitled to.

The County has asked for a time extension for the submittal of evidence of earthquake damage to WSMF connections, and for advance funding for initial inspections and evaluations of WSMF buildings. The appeal neither identifies the buildings for which the funding is sought, nor provides any information of earthquake damage that has already been identified on the subject structures.

DISCUSSION

Part (1) WSMF Inspections: This appeal has to do with more than just the deadline or whether the County had received proper notice of that deadline for submittal of documentary materials. It also has to do with the issue of whether FEMA will provide funding for widespread searching for hidden damage, and what criteria will be used in the award of such grants. Thus, rather than exploring the deadline issue, which has already been reviewed in the first appeal response, it seems appropriate to first explore whether any of the subject buildings would have been eligible had there been no appeal.

In the appeal, the County simply focused on the deadline issue and did not even identify or list any of the structures which they believed would otherwise be eligible. Thus, the County has not provided any technical evidence of the potential eligibility of any structure affected by the deadline issue in its appeal, so this FEMA review is based Gtheir position that FEMA routinely has paid for the cost of inspections and preliminary engineering analysis, whereas the imposition of the deadline has prevented such funding for the affected projects. Contrary to the County's impression, however, the WSMF Policy does not represent a change in FEMA's standard practice. It is intended only to clarify the practice in reference to the particular situation presented by the large amount of hidden damage connected to the WSMF issue.

With the Policy, FEMA makes it clear that funding will go to reimburse the costs for preliminary inspections ONLY when damage is subsequently found. After WSMF damage is found, further inspection costs are only covered if pre-approved by FEMA. In addition, the Policy included a restriction on the eligibility of initial inspection costs. The Policy on page 2 #1 states: "FEMA will reimburse the costs of connection inspections performed in accordance with the Interim Guidelines: Evaluation, Repair, Modification and Design of Welded Steel Moment Frame Structures, FEMA 267, August 1995 (Guidelines), where the external building damage associated with the declared earthquake event is of such an extent as to indicate the strong likelihood of steel moment frame connection damage." All of this is consistent with general FEMA practice, where detailed engineering analysis and design necessary to both document and repair disaster damage, which has already been broadly identified to exist, has been routinely covered, but the initial inspections to determine the existence and the scope of damage has not been covered.

Thus, this appeal is not predicated on the issue of deadlines per se. Instead it is fundamentally based on the actual disaster damage on each separate WSMF structure which the County is seeking to fund. This includes both (1) the visible external damage is of a type and severity consistent with a level of building drift which would indicate a failure of the moment frame, and (2) the finding of damage to the WSMF connections themselves.
The reason for the August 1997 deadline set by FEMA was not intended to provide a way to deny legitimate funding for the repair of eligible earthquake damage. Instead it was to draw to a close the process of looking for damage which had been open ended for too long already. August 1997 is three and one-half years after the disaster event. In fact, the FEMA 267 Guidelines state the importance of conducting preliminary inspections and evaluations as soon after the disaster as possible. Consistent with this, the August 1997 deadline was more intended to provide a push to get the paperwork on such damage in so that the repair funding could be established in a timely manner, rather than to begin damage investigations which, had damage been significant, would have been carried out years
earlier.

FEMA practice in general, is to provide reimbursement for the costs of repair, except in the case of "small" projects of less than about $45,000-$50,000 (depending on the fiscal year.) On these projects, FEMA pays on the basis of project estimates. Thus, there has never been any limitation imposed by FEMA on the County's ability or wherewithal to inspect their facilities for such potentially life-threatening damage.

Because of the safety issues involved, any building in which evidence of moment frame damage sufficient to satisfy the external damage Policy criterion quoted above, which had not already been investigated for WSMF damage would be an obvious public liability. Since it is now five years after the disaster, it is fair for FEMA to assume that the County officials themselves had already determined that the condition of the subject buildings did not to pose a life safety risk. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that any building for which an investigation of possible WSMF damage had not been done by the time of the appeal was not seriously enough damaged to qualify for the preliminary inspection costs specified in the Policy anyway.
FEMA has always had deadlines of far less than three and a half years for identifying eligible damage. In fact, in the case of the Policy, and the setting of the deadline for submittals under it, the time frame was far more generous than usual because FEMA recognized the difficulties presented by the WSMF problems. Thus, without the Policy and its specific deadlines, the County would have already been too late to request assistance to repair WSMF damage in the subject buildings had that damage not been found by the time that they filed their first appeal. In addition, since none of the subject structures had significant external damage anyway, none would have been eligible under the policy, regardless of the deadline.

Part (2), WSMF Building Evaluations: In the case of reimbursement for evaluations, the Policy imposed no deadline - only the requirement that, from the effective date of the Policy, that FEMA pre-approve the scope and costs for any eligible structural evaluations. This is consistent with FEMA standard practice. In its appeal, the County has not cited one instance where its delayed knowledge of the Policy had resulted in the cost of any evaluation to be determined ineligible because it had not been pre-approved. Apparently evaluations are not at issue in this case even though they are mentioned in the appeal brief.

CONCLUSIONS

FEMA has reviewed this appeal and has determined that eligibility would not have been any different with or without the deadline. In their appeal, the County provided no list of affected properties or evidence that any affected structure met the criteria within the Policy for reimbursement of inspection costs. A review of FEMA records on the list of structures enumerated in the OES letter of January 9, 1998, to FEMA accompanying the first appeal, shows that none of the subject structures would have met the entrance criteria in the Policy for eligibility of the inspection and evaluation costs. That policy requires that they have "external building damage [of] such an extent as to indicate the strong likelihood of steel moment frame connection damage."

The FEMA program is a reimbursement program directed at the repair of known disaster damage. It is incumbent on the subgrantee to identify the damage and file the request to FEMA for reimbursement in a timely manner. It is now five years after the earthquake. The purpose of the FEMA program is to assist communities to recover from disasters which would otherwise overwhelm local resources because of the magnitude of the disruption to local public facilities. It is not a program intended to provide coverage for the costs of investigations of the condition of fully functional buildings many years after the event.

The appeal is denied. Inspection and evaluation costs not submitted in compliance with the FEMA deadlines, as well as any WSMF damage not already identified and submitted to FEMA for funding in compliance with the WSMF Policy, are ineligible for FEMA funding.
Last updated