Cruise Terminal 1

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA 1606-DR
ApplicantPort of Galveston
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#167-ULN6R-00
PW ID#1471
Date Signed2008-03-10T04:00:00

Citation:

FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Port of Galveston, TX, Project Worksheet 1471Cruise Terminal 1

Cross-reference:

Buildings, Pre-Disaster Conditions, Time Limitations, Work Eligibility

Summary:

Hurricane Rita struck Texas on September 23, 2005, causing widespread damage. The Port of Galveston (Applicant) reported that wind-driven rain damaged the roof of the building known as Cruise Terminal 1. The Applicant requested $547,905 to remove and replace the existing roof. FEMA prepared PW 1471 for $0 on February 22, 2006, because it found no visible windstorm damage to the roof and determined that the damage, water saturation of the insulation below the cap sheet making the roof “spongy,” was not disaster related. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on April 3, 2006, claiming that winds lifted the roof membrane allowing wind-driven rain to saturate the insulation and damage the roof. It requested up to $695,999 to remove and replace the roof. FEMA denied the first appeal on April 18, 2006, stating that the FEMA Project Officer found no evidence of wind damage, tears, or seam damage and the Applicant did not provide new information or documentation to indicate that Hurricane Rita caused the damage to the roof. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 24, 2007, more than one year after the regulatory time limit. It included an engineering report, dated October 27, 2006, which described several damaged areas of the roof. The engineering report stated that the roof is in poor to fair condition compared to roofs similar in age, locations, and composition. The report does not indicate that Hurricane Rita caused the damage to the roof; it generally refers to corrosion, weathering, improper construction, and deterioration.

Issues:

1. Did the Applicant provide information to show that the roof was damaged as a result of the declared disaster?
2. Did the Applicant submit its second appeal within the regulatory time limit?

Findings:

1. No.

2. No.

Rationale:

44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), 44 CFR §206.206(c)

Appeal Letter

March10, 2008

Philip Anders
Alternate State Coordinating Officer
Division of Emergency Management
Hurricane COF
5425 Polk Street, Mail Slot O
Houston, TX 77023

Re: Second Appeal–Port of Galveston, PA ID 167-ULN6R-00, Cruise Terminal 1, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PW) 1471

Dear Mr. Anders:

This letter is in response to the second appeal forwarded by your office on September 14, 2007. The Port of Galveston (Applicant) is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated April 18, 2006. The Applicant maintains that wind-driven rain from Hurricane Rita damaged the roof of the building known as Cruise Terminal 1. The original cost estimate for PW 1471 was $547,905. The Applicant subsequently requested up to $695,999 to remove and replace the roof.
FEMA obligated PW 1741 for $0 on February 22, 2006, because it found no visible windstorm damage to the roof and determined that the damage, water saturation of the insulation below the cap sheet making the roof “spongy,” was not disaster related. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on April 3, 2006, claiming that winds lifted the roof membrane allowing wind-driven rain to separate the roof at the seams, shift and soak the insulation, and fill voids left under the membrane with water. The Applicant pointed to damage to the passenger walkway located above the roof as evidence that wind-driven rain was blown under the roof panels and maintained that air conditioning units, conduit, and a large amount of tar prevented the roof from being blown off in the storm.

On April 18, 2006, FEMA denied the first appeal stating that the FEMA Project Officer found no evidence of wind damage, tears, or seam damage. In addition, the Applicant did not provide any new information or documentation to indicate that Hurricane Rita damaged the roof. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on July 24, 2007, acknowledging that it had not done so within the regulatory timeframe for submitting an appeal. It included a roof condition assessment report dated October 27, 2006, prepared by its engineering firm.

The engineering report details through description and photos, several damaged areas of the roof and provides recommendations in terms of repair/replacement or maintenance. The engineering report states that the roof is in poor to fair condition compared to roofs similar in age, locations, and composition. The report does not indicate that Hurricane Rita caused damage to the roof.

The Applicant has not provided any information to show that the “damage” to the roof was the result of the declared disaster event, which is a requirement for funding in accordance with 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1). Furthermore, the Applicant’s second appeal was submitted more than one year after the regulatory time limit for submitting second appeals, as required by 44 CFR §206.206(c). Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region 6

Last updated
Return to top