Damage to a Corona Wastewater Treatment Plant

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantCity of Corona
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#065-16350
PW ID#94534
Date Signed1998-07-22T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; City of Corona; DSR 94534

Cross Reference: Emergency work; Pre-existing contingency plan

Summary: Flooding associated with DR-1044 resulted in damage to a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP1) that is owned and operated by the City of Corona (subgrantee). During the disaster-event, the levees surrounding the facility were overtopped, resulting in deposition of stormwater, silt, and debris to the percolation ponds (Ponds, ten in total), resulting in a minimal percolation rate and reduced treatment capacity. Subsequently, the subgrantee initiated several measures to mitigate the potential discharge of untreated effluent to the downstream environment, including (1) stormwater was drained into the adjacent creek; (2) scarifying and drilling was performed to the Ponds; (3) wastewater was discharged to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI); (4) a temporary pump station was installed to convey wastewater to a second plant, WWTP2. The inspectors prepared Category B DSR 94534 for $549,014, which included $6,952 for force account labor, equipment, and materials, and $17,063 for rental equipment. In addition, the inspectors included $29,281 for scarifying and drilling, $296,340 for SARI discharge fees, and $228,658 for the temporary pump station. Upon review, FEMA determined that the SARI discharge and the temporary pump station were not eligible emergency measures and reduced the cost of the DSR to $51,179. In their first appeal, the subgrantee stated that SARI discharge and temporary pump station were required to prevent the discharge of wastewater to the Santa Ana River. The Regional Director determined that the work was not required as a result of the disaster-event, but rather because the subgrantee failed to provide 100-year flood protection, as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). Further, the SARI discharge was determined not to be an emergency measure because it was part of the subgrantee's normal contingency plan. In their second appeal, the subgrantee asserts that a letter from the CRWQCB establishes the existence of an immediate threat and that the "pump station was an extraordinary measure and not an existing contingency plan." Concerning the additional discharge to the SARI, the subgrantee states that such measures were required to comply with a CRWQCB Cease and Desist Order.

Issues:
  1. Should FEMA fund the temporary pump station?
  2. Should FEMA fund the SARI discharge fees?
Findings:
  1. Yes. However, the scope of work associated with the temporary pump station is covered under a separate permanent restoration DSR.
  2. Yes. The discharge of stormwater / wastewater to the SARI line was required to mitigate the potential for discharge to the downstream environment.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.225(a)(1)

Appeal Letter

July 22, 1998

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103

Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your August 15, 1997, submittal of the City of Corona's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94534 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. The subgrantee claims that installation of a temporary pump station and discharge to the Santa Anna Regional Sewer Interceptor (SARI) line were required to eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety. As such, the subgrantee is requesting an additional $235,653 for the temporary pump station and $296,340 for the SARI discharge fees.

I have reviewed the appeal and, as explained in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that the costs associated with the temporary pump station are not eligible for funding under this DSR, because this scope of work is included in DSR 94512. However, the costs associated with excessive discharge to the SARI are eligible for funding as an emergency protective measure. Therefore, by copy of this letter, I have asked the Regional Director to prepare a supplemental DSR for $296,340.

Please inform the applicant of my 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: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
During the winter storms of 1995, flooding resulted in damage to a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP1) that is owned and operated by the City of Corona Utility Services Department (subgrantee). The facility has an average daily flow of 6.7 million gallons per day (MGD) and is located within a 100-year floodplain, adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Temascal Creek. During the disaster-event, levees that separate the facility from the Temescal Creek were overtopped, resulting in deposition of silt and debris to the percolation ponds (Ponds, ten in total) of WWTP1. The floodwaters filled each Pond to capacity and the silt and debris deposition resulted in a reduction of the percolation rate. Subsequently, the subgrantee initiated "emergency" measures to mitigate the potential discharge of untreated effluent to the downstream environment, as follows:
  1. Because Pond "9" contained no effluent prior to the disaster-event, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB, cognizant State Agency) allowed the subgrantee to drain Pond "9" into the Temescal Creek. Similarly, stormwater from Ponds "1," "2," and "3" was then drained into Pond "4," and subsequently drained into the Temescal Creek.
  2. To restore the percolation rate, scarifying and drilling was performed by both contract and force account. Reportedly, these measures did not improve the percolation rate significantly.
  3. Prior to the disaster-event, the subgrantee maintained a connection to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI), which is a regional sewer-brine interceptor pipeline. The subgrantee had purchased a limited capacity in the SARI, not to exceed 3.2 million gallons per day (MGD). Due to the lost treatment capacity in WWTP1, the subgrantee increased the discharge to the SARI, exceeding the maximum daily purchased capacity during January 1995.
  4. According to the subgrantee, none of these efforts eliminated the potential threat of untreated effluent discharge to the environment. Therefore, the subgrantee let a contract to install a temporary pump station and discharge effluent from WWTP1 to the percolation ponds of a second, nearby Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP2), which is also owned and operated by the subgrantee. Reportedly, approximately 4.2 MGD were pumped from WWTP1 to WWTP2.
The subgrantee requested Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance to cover the cost of these measures. Subsequently, an inspection was performed on April 26, 1995, by representatives of the subgrantee, FEMA, and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). The inspectors prepared Category "B" Damage Survey Report (DSR) 94534 for $549,014, which included $2,221 for labor, $1,093 for equipment, $3,638 for materials, and $17,063 for rental equipment. In addition, the inspectors included $524,998 for contract costs, which were $29,281 related to measure "2" (see above), $296,340 for fees from discharging to the SARI, and $228,658 for the installation, operation, and removal of the temporary pump station.

Upon review of the DSR, FEMA determined that the costs of discharging untreated effluent to the SARI and the temporary pump station were ineligible. As such, FEMA reduced the eligible amount of funding for DSR 94534 to $51,179. This basis for this determination was that excess utility costs are not eligible for FEMA funding and the temporary pump station was not required to lessen or eliminate an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved property.

First Appeal
On April 16, 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal to the Regional Director. The subgrantee requested that FEMA reconsider funding for the SARI discharge fees and temporary pump station. They stated that these were necessary emergency protective measures, to prevent untreated effluent from being discharged to the Santa Ana River. In response to the appeal, the Regional Director determined that, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 206.223, the work was not required as a result of the disaster-event. According to CRWQCB Order Number 84-112 (Order 84-112), the subgrantee was required to provide 100-year flood protection to the facility within ten years of the date of the Order (December 14, 1984). Because the subgrantee had not provided this level of protection at the time of the disaster, the Regional Director concluded that the pre-disaster condition of the facility was a significant factor in the inundation and subsequent inability of WWTP1 to handle treatment of the wastewater during the disaster-event. Further, the Regional Director stated that because directing flows to the SARI are part of the subgrantee's normal contingency plan for treatment of excessive wastewater flows, FEMA does not consider the additional discharge to the SARI to be an emergency protective measure. Therefore, the appeal was denied.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal to OES on October 9, 1997. In their appeal, the subgrantee states that FEMA's denial of the first appeal was not based on correct information. They contend that the 100-year flood protection requirements mandated by Order 84-112 apply only to the mechanical and hardened structural components of WWTP1, not the Ponds. The subgrantee has submitted a letter from the CRWQCB in support of this assertion. Further, the subgrantee states that another letter from the CRWQCB establishes the existence of an immediate threat. The subgrantee continues, "the installation of the pump station was an extraordinary measure and not an existing contingency plan." Concerning the additional discharge to the SARI, the subgrantee states that such measures were required to comply with CRWQCB Cease and Desist Order Number 95-35 (Order 95-35). As such, the subgrantee is requesting an additional $235,653 for the temporary pump station and $296,340 for the SARI discharge fees, based upon the final costs.

DISCUSSION
The cost of performing work or services essential to saving lives and protecting and preserving property or public health and safety is generally eligible for Public Assistance funding. Such work may include clearance of debris and construction of temporary facilities necessary to the performance of emergency tasks. In this instance, the subgrantee claims that an immediate threat existed as a result of the disaster, and that emergency measures were taken in response to that threat. The subgrantee believes FEMA should provide funding for these measures.

Applicability of 100-year Flood Protection Requirements
During review of the first appeal, FEMA determined that Order 84-112 required the subgrantee to construct and maintain 100-year flood protection for WWTP1. At the time of the disaster, the subgrantee had not provided this level of protection and, consequently, WWTP1 was flooded. On that basis, FEMA determined that because the subgrantee's facilities were flooded due to the lack of required flood protection, any threat that may have existed was not a result of the disaster, but resulted from the substandard pre-disaster design of the facility. However, the reported threat in this instance was posed by the potential discharge of untreated wastewater due to the high levels of floodwaters within the facility. Measures to protect the environment from contaminant migration may have been required by the presence of these floodwaters. As such, FEMA will not deny the subgrantee's request for funding of these measures based on the pre-disaster level of flood protection. Nevertheless, the issue of whether, and to what extent, an immediate threat existed requires further discussion.

Existence of an Immediate Threat
The subgrantee believes that the presence of floodwaters within WWTP1 and the potentaslished the existence of an immediate threat. In particular, this condition resulted in discharge of untreated wastewater to the environment on several occasions. Further, the subgrantee states that emergency measures were required to mitigate the potential discharge of further contamination. To support their contention that such discharge would pose a threat to public health, the subgrantee submitted correspondence from the CRWCQB (dated October 6, 1997). This correspondence indicates that wastewater discharge to streams must be adequately oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected. The CRWQCB continues, "if the receiving water can provide 20:1 dilution of the wastewater, the wastewater does not need to be coagulated and filtered.[but] it still must be adequately disinfected to protect public health." Being a facility that discharged treated wastewater by percolation ponds, WWTP1 had inadequate disinfection equipment. Therefore, FEMA acknowledges that the potential discharge of untreated wastewater posed a threat to public health.

The measures taken by the subgrantee to eliminate this threat were to drill and scarify the Ponds, drain floodwaters to the Temescal Creek, discharge wastewater to the SARI, and install a temporary pump station to discharge wastewater to WWTP2. FEMA approved funding for the first two measures listed above. However, the subgrantee believes that all of the measures were required to eliminate the threat. The extent to which discharging wastewater to the SARI and pumping wastewater to WWTP2 are considered eligible emergency protective measures is explained below.

Eligibility of Temporary Pump Station
Category "F" Supplemental DSR (DSR 94512) was prepared to cover the costs associated with restoring WWTP1 to pre-disaster conditions. The scope of work for the Supplemental DSR included repairing a fence, debris removal, and pumping and cleaning the Ponds. The pumping costs covered under DSR 94512 include the costs associated with the instillation, operation, and removal of the temporary pump station, thus removing these items from DSR 94534. Funding for this DSR was suspended because the work was initiated prior to implementation of an environmental review by FEMA, as required by the National Environmental Protection Act. Because the costs associated with the temporary pump station are covered by DSR 94512, FEMA will not fund these costs under DSR 94534.

Eligibility of SARI discharge
The subgrantee claims that they did not exceed the contracted capacity on the SARI until such action was required as a result of the disaster-event. Further, the subgrantee explains that the cost of disaster-related discharge to the SARI is "readily separated from regular costs and there can be no disputing that the need to violate our SARI agreement to limit flow to the line was solely due to the disaster." In support of this position, the subgrantee notes that Order 95-35 and California Water Code, section 11376, required that extraordinary measures be taken to eliminate the discharge of untreated wastewater to the environment.

It is found that the introduction of floodwaters to this facility resulted in an immediate threat to the environment and public health and safety. Consequently, the subgrantee was required by the CRWQCB to purge the floodwaters from its facility. According to Order 95-35, the subgrantee significantly increased wastewater discharge to the SARI on January 5, 1995. An invoice dated February 7, 1995, indicates that the subgrantee incurred a surcharge of $296,340 for exceeding the maximum allowed peak daily discharge by 898,000 gallons (assessed at $0.33 per gallon) during the month of January 1995. Based upon the fact that discharge to the SARI was the only feasible alternative to discharging wastewater to the downstream environment at the time the discharge limit was exceeded, the fees associated with this discharge are considered eligible for reimbursement as an emergency measure to protect the environment.

CONCLUSION
The documentation submitted with this appeal establishes that the discharge of excessive quantities of wastewater to the SARI line during the month of January 1995 was necessary to eliminate an immediate threat to public health and safety. As such, the costs incurred by the subgrantee for exceeding their maximum allowable discharge quantity to the SARI is eligible for funding as an emergency protective measure. Therefore, the Regional Director will prepare a Supplemental DSR for $296,340. Because the costs associated with the temporary pump station are covered by DSR 94512, FEMA will not fund these costs under DSR 94534.
Last updated