State Route 3003 over Benninger Creek

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1093-DR
ApplicantPennsylvania Department of Transportation
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92003
PW ID#61458
Date Signed1997-11-24T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1093-DR-PA; Susquehanna County (the County); DSR 61458

Cross Reference: Preexisting condition, damage repair, replacement cost, and improved project.

Summary: In January 1996, flooding severely damaged a one-lane bridge carrying rural State Route 3003 over Benninger Creek. The predisaster condition of the bridge was very poor. The most recent bridge inspections conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) indicated a "basically intolerable condition requiring high priority of replacement." On March 27, 1996, PennDOT awarded a low-bid construction contract for $180,720 to replace the bridge with a new box culvert, and requested FEMA funding. On August 31, 1996, DSR 61458 for $43,058 was prepared. This is the amount that FEMA estimated that "in kind" bridge repairs would have cost. The "in kind" repairs consisted of removal and resetting of the superstructure, replacement of the stone abutment with a reinforced concrete abutment, and approach roadway repair.

In their first appeal, PennDOT argues that the cost to simply repair the bridge, based on their estimate, exceeds the contract cost of the new box culvert (exclusive of roadway repairs). In response, the Regional Director determined that the design of the new box culvert does not comply with Regulations because the minimum standards for roadway width and hydraulic capacity were exceeded. She concluded that the box culvert represents an improved project. PennDOT submitted their second appeal on June 11, 1997, arguing that the roadway width and hydraulic capacity (flood design) are both in conformance to their design standards and criteria.

Issues: Does the new two-lane box culvert constitute eligible work?

Findings: No. Because the preexisting bridge was a one-lane facility, FEMA can only fund either repairs in-kind or a new replacement structure at the in-kind width (one-lane) and length. The Regional Director will determine eligible costs of repairs or replacement as appropriate.

Rationale: Title 44 CFR 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities.

Appeal Letter

November 24, 1997

Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105

Dear Mr. Wynne:

This letter is in response to your June 26, 1997, transmittal of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT) second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 61458 under FEMA-1093-DR-PA. The applicant is requesting reimbursement of costs to construct a new two-lane box culvert carrying State Route 3003 over Benninger Creek. The box culvert replaces a one-lane bridge that was severely damaged by flooding in January 1996.

According to a PennDOT bridge inspection report, the predisaster condition of the bridge was poor. First, the bridge width of 15.5 feet only accommodated one lane of traffic. Second, the bridge opening was substandard hydraulically. This actually contributed to the flood-related damages, because the creek was forced, under pressure, through the undersized bridge opening. Also, the floodwaters overtopped the bridge deck damaging it. Third, PennDOT's inspections indicated that both the superstructure and abutments had serious deficiencies, and major corrective action was imminent if the bridge was to remain open.

The flood knocked out one of the stone masonry abutments, causing the deck to drop and settle approximately four feet. This caused the steel beams of the superstructure to separate from the timber deck. The steel beams of the superstructure were salvageable, as were some of the deck timbers. The deck would have to be reconstructed, however, using both the salvaged and new timbers. The flood-related damage to the abutment rendered it unrepairable. The remaining abutment was salvageable. The work required to restore the bridge "in kind" would therefore include construction of one new abutment, reconstruction of the bridge deck, and ancillary roadway construction.

In March 1996, PennDOT awarded a low-bid construction contract for $180,720 to replace the bridge with a new two-lane box culvert. They requested FEMA funding of this amount. Upon review, the inspection team determined that the replacement cost was excessive considering the type and extent of damage, and the predisaster condition of the bridge. On August 31, 1996, DSR 61458 for $43,058 was prepared. This is the amount FEMA estimated for repairs to return the structure to its predisaster condition and function.

In their first appeal, PennDOT requested $137,383, which is the difference between the final contract cost of the box culvert installation and the approved DSR amount. They argue that the cost to repair the bridge exceeds the contract cost of the new box culvert. However, PennDOT only included the contract line item price of the box culvert in their comparison; they excluded all other roadway and miscellaneous contract items associated with the crossing. In response, the Regional Director determined that the design of the new box culvert does not comply with Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.226, because the minimum standards for roadway width and hydraulic capacity were exceeded. She concluded that the box culvert represents an improved project. PennDOT submitted their second appeal on June 11, 1997, arguing that the roadway width and hydraulic capacity (flood design) are both in conformance with their design standards and criteria.

The standards used to design the new box culvert are for a two-lane structure. The bridge that was damaged was a one-lane structure and therefore the standards do not apply. The two-lane structure is not eligible for funding. Eligible work is repair of the structure to its predisaster condition or replacement with a new one-lane structure if the repair cost exceeds 50 percent of the cost of the one-lane replacement structure. I have instructed the Regional Director to make that comparison of costs to determine if a replacement structure is eligible.

Please inform the applicant of this determination. The applicant may appeal this determination to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

cc: Rita A. Calvan
Regional Director
Region III

Enclosure
Last updated