Rainfall and Sewer Water Collection
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1247-DR-PR, P.A. #087-00000, Municipality of Loiza, PW 05284, Rainfall and Sewer Water Collection
Cross-reference: Project Documentation, Public Health and Safety Threat
Summary: Hurricane Georges struck Puerto Rico on September 21, 1998, damaging infrastructure throughout the Commonwealth. The president declared a major disaster on September 24, 1998. On November 13, 1998, FEMA prepared PW 05284 for rainfall and sewer water collection in the Municipality of Loiza (Municipality). The Municipality stated that the storm knocked out power to a pump station, causing storm water and sewage to backup into the community, creating a health hazard. On February 1, 1999, FEMA determined that the PW was ineligible because the Municipality did not submit documentation to support its claim that a health threat existed. The Municipality appealed this determination on May 25, 1999, and submitted an additional letter on June 17, 1999. The Disaster Recovery Manager denied the first appeal on December 29, 1999, stating that the Municipality failed to provide key documentation regarding the specific health threat, quantity of water transported and disposed, contractor price quotes, maintenance plan for affected sites, and location, elevation levels, dimensions of floodwaters and other details necessary to estimate the quantity of water. The Municipality submitted its second appeal on March 30, 2000, claiming that the Public Assistance Coordinator never gave instructions to obtain certification of a health threat from a state or federal official. It also explained the process by which its contractor disposed of wastewater and tracked quantities and costs and submitted contractor invoices and manifests for water disposal as evidence of its claims.
Issues: Did the Municipality submit sufficient evidence to support its claim that a health and safety threat existed?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.205(b), 44 CFR 206.225(a)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1247-DR |
| Applicant | Municipality of Loiza |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 087-00000 |
| PW ID# | 05284 |
| Date Signed | 2000-11-01T05:00:00 |
Cross-reference: Project Documentation, Public Health and Safety Threat
Summary: Hurricane Georges struck Puerto Rico on September 21, 1998, damaging infrastructure throughout the Commonwealth. The president declared a major disaster on September 24, 1998. On November 13, 1998, FEMA prepared PW 05284 for rainfall and sewer water collection in the Municipality of Loiza (Municipality). The Municipality stated that the storm knocked out power to a pump station, causing storm water and sewage to backup into the community, creating a health hazard. On February 1, 1999, FEMA determined that the PW was ineligible because the Municipality did not submit documentation to support its claim that a health threat existed. The Municipality appealed this determination on May 25, 1999, and submitted an additional letter on June 17, 1999. The Disaster Recovery Manager denied the first appeal on December 29, 1999, stating that the Municipality failed to provide key documentation regarding the specific health threat, quantity of water transported and disposed, contractor price quotes, maintenance plan for affected sites, and location, elevation levels, dimensions of floodwaters and other details necessary to estimate the quantity of water. The Municipality submitted its second appeal on March 30, 2000, claiming that the Public Assistance Coordinator never gave instructions to obtain certification of a health threat from a state or federal official. It also explained the process by which its contractor disposed of wastewater and tracked quantities and costs and submitted contractor invoices and manifests for water disposal as evidence of its claims.
Issues: Did the Municipality submit sufficient evidence to support its claim that a health and safety threat existed?
Findings: No.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.205(b), 44 CFR 206.225(a)
Appeal Letter
November 1, 2000
CPA Jorge E. Aponte
Governor's Authorized Representative
Government of Puerto Rico
Post Office Box 9021812
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-1812
Re: Second Appeal - Municipality of Loiza, PA #087-00000, Municipality-wide Rainfall and Sewer Water Collection, FEMA-1247-DR-PR, Project Worksheet (PW) 05284
Dear Mr. Aponte:
This is in response to the referenced appeal forwarded by your office on May 24, 2000. The Municipality of Loiza (Municipality) is asking FEMA to fund the transport and disposal of 4.5 million gallons of rainfall and sewer water at a cost of $675,000. Previously, FEMA denied funding because the Municipality failed to support this claim with appropriate documentation.
On September 21, 1998, Hurricane Georges struck Puerto Rico. Heavily impacted communities lacked necessities such as potable water, electric power and shelter. Major damage throughout the Commonwealth resulted in a presidential declaration on September 24, 1998. On November 13, 1998, FEMA prepared PW 05284 for rainfall and sewer water collection in the Municipality. The Municipality stated that there was no power at the pump station after the flood. Therefore, contaminated storm water did not drain and subsequently flooded the Municipality. On February 1, 1999, FEMA determined that the PW was ineligible because the Municipality did not submit maintenance records for the pump station and evidence that a specific threat existed.
The Municipality submitted its first appeal on May 25, 1999, followed by additional information on June 17, 1999. It stated that it did not agree with the need to have certification from the state to verify the existence of a health threat, and instead submitted certification from the Municipality's sanitation department. The Municipality also said that the pumping station of Mi?i Mi?i was its responsibility and that it was working properly prior to Hurricane Georges.
FEMA denied the first appeal on December 29, 1999, stating that the Municipality failed to provide key documentation regarding the specific health threat, quantity of water transported and disposed, contractor price quotes, maintenance plan for affected sites, and location, elevation levels, dimensions of flood waters and other details necessary to estimate the quantity of water. FEMA stated that attempts to meet with the Municipality to review documentation were unsuccessful.
On March 30, 2000, the Municipality submitted its second appeal. This appeal was not submitted within the 60-day regulatory timeframe, but we have allowed time for the translation from English to Spanish. In the second appeal, the Municipality's agent argued that he had been willing to meet with FEMA and the State to review documentation, but that FEMA and the State did not attend scheduled meetings. The Municipality claimed that the Public Assistance Coordinator never gave instructions to obtain certification of a health threat from a state or federal official. It also explained the process by which its contractor disposed of wastewater and tracked quantities and costs.
As part of its second appeal, the Municipality submitted copies of manifests from the contractor that purported to show that the contractor hauled 4.5 million gallons of water to a treatment plant operated by Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA). The applicant also submitted invoices from its contractor. Some of these documents lack the appropriate signatures and could not be verified. In addition, the applicant supplied a summary of trips made from
October 17, 1998 to January 27, 1999. These documents do not verify the specific health threat.
The Municipality has not provided much of the information requested in the first appeal response, i.e., state or federal certification of a health threat, contractor bids, and the location, elevation levels, and dimensions of floodwaters. The information we received does not verify that a health and safety threat existed or that the expenses claimed by the Municipality were incurred for the performance of eligible work. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Jos? A. Bravo
Disaster Recovery Manager
Caribbean Area Office
CPA Jorge E. Aponte
Governor's Authorized Representative
Government of Puerto Rico
Post Office Box 9021812
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-1812
Re: Second Appeal - Municipality of Loiza, PA #087-00000, Municipality-wide Rainfall and Sewer Water Collection, FEMA-1247-DR-PR, Project Worksheet (PW) 05284
Dear Mr. Aponte:
This is in response to the referenced appeal forwarded by your office on May 24, 2000. The Municipality of Loiza (Municipality) is asking FEMA to fund the transport and disposal of 4.5 million gallons of rainfall and sewer water at a cost of $675,000. Previously, FEMA denied funding because the Municipality failed to support this claim with appropriate documentation.
On September 21, 1998, Hurricane Georges struck Puerto Rico. Heavily impacted communities lacked necessities such as potable water, electric power and shelter. Major damage throughout the Commonwealth resulted in a presidential declaration on September 24, 1998. On November 13, 1998, FEMA prepared PW 05284 for rainfall and sewer water collection in the Municipality. The Municipality stated that there was no power at the pump station after the flood. Therefore, contaminated storm water did not drain and subsequently flooded the Municipality. On February 1, 1999, FEMA determined that the PW was ineligible because the Municipality did not submit maintenance records for the pump station and evidence that a specific threat existed.
The Municipality submitted its first appeal on May 25, 1999, followed by additional information on June 17, 1999. It stated that it did not agree with the need to have certification from the state to verify the existence of a health threat, and instead submitted certification from the Municipality's sanitation department. The Municipality also said that the pumping station of Mi?i Mi?i was its responsibility and that it was working properly prior to Hurricane Georges.
FEMA denied the first appeal on December 29, 1999, stating that the Municipality failed to provide key documentation regarding the specific health threat, quantity of water transported and disposed, contractor price quotes, maintenance plan for affected sites, and location, elevation levels, dimensions of flood waters and other details necessary to estimate the quantity of water. FEMA stated that attempts to meet with the Municipality to review documentation were unsuccessful.
On March 30, 2000, the Municipality submitted its second appeal. This appeal was not submitted within the 60-day regulatory timeframe, but we have allowed time for the translation from English to Spanish. In the second appeal, the Municipality's agent argued that he had been willing to meet with FEMA and the State to review documentation, but that FEMA and the State did not attend scheduled meetings. The Municipality claimed that the Public Assistance Coordinator never gave instructions to obtain certification of a health threat from a state or federal official. It also explained the process by which its contractor disposed of wastewater and tracked quantities and costs.
As part of its second appeal, the Municipality submitted copies of manifests from the contractor that purported to show that the contractor hauled 4.5 million gallons of water to a treatment plant operated by Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA). The applicant also submitted invoices from its contractor. Some of these documents lack the appropriate signatures and could not be verified. In addition, the applicant supplied a summary of trips made from
October 17, 1998 to January 27, 1999. These documents do not verify the specific health threat.
The Municipality has not provided much of the information requested in the first appeal response, i.e., state or federal certification of a health threat, contractor bids, and the location, elevation levels, and dimensions of floodwaters. The information we received does not verify that a health and safety threat existed or that the expenses claimed by the Municipality were incurred for the performance of eligible work. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Jos? A. Bravo
Disaster Recovery Manager
Caribbean Area Office
Last updated