alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Work Eligibility

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1361-DR
ApplicantWashington State Department of General Administration
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-U5P35-00
PW ID#1567 Version 2
Date Signed2005-06-01T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1361-DR-WA; Washington Dept of General Administration (GA)

Cross-reference: Work eligibility, Buildings

Summary: The Nisqually earthquake occurred on February 28, 2001, and caused damage to the Washington State Legislative Building. The freestanding columns at the east and west wings of the Legislative Building support a masonry lintel at the fourth floor that in turn supports a perimeter balcony. Beneath the perimeter balcony is a hollow, box-shaped area or entablature. The entablature is the part of the building that spans the top of the columns above the wing colonnade soffit system. After the earthquake, damage inspections were limited to visual observations of the soffit from below and the balcony from above. No damage was observed or reported to FEMA. The interior of the entablature was not inspected following the earthquake because of difficulty accessing the area. During the design phase of a renovation project, concerns were raised about bracing of the perimeter columns at the east and west wings and required an evaluation of the entablature. At that time and almost two years after the earthquake, damages to the entablature (wing colonnade soffit) were discovered apparently resulting from the Nisqually earthquake that consist of spalled brick and a crack in the concrete slab of the fourth floor perimeter balcony on the western side of the building. The Applicant stated that it does not intend to repair the cracking and masonry damage found in the interior of the entablature system. The work proposed in the appeal is a bracing system to connect all the perimeter lintels to the fourth floor slab and tie all the columns to the entablature system, which constitutes a seismic retrofit of a non-conforming, un-reinforced masonry building.

Issues: Is the proposed work eligible for FEMA reimbursement?

Findings: No. The proposed work constitutes a seismic retrofit. Since the proposed does not meet an imminent threat, it is not eligible as an emergency protective measure. Additionally, the proposed work is not eligible permanent work since it does not repair the damage.
Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1)

Appeal Letter

June 1, 2005

Donna J. Voss
Deputy State Coordinating Officer
State of Washington
Military Department
Emergency Management Division
MS: TA-20 Building 20
Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122

Re: Second Appeal – Washington State Department of General Administration, PA ID 000-U5P35-00, Work Eligibility, FEMA-1361-DR-WA

Dear Ms. Voss:

This is in response to your letter dated January 3, 2005, regarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Washington State Department of General Administration (Applicant). The appeal disputes the basis of FEMA’s eligibility analysis and seeks funding for work associated with repair of the Legislative Building’s wing soffit, totaling $1,520,413.

After thorough review of the material submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the damages to the entablature (wing colonnade soffit) apparently resulting from the Nisqually earthquake consist of spalled brick and a crack in the concrete slab of the fourth floor perimeter balcony on the western side of the building. The Applicant stated that it does not intend to repair the cracking and masonry damage found in the interior of the entablature system. Rather, the work proposed in the appeal is a bracing system to connect all the perimeter lintels to the fourth floor slab and tie all the columns to the entablature system which constitutes a seismic retrofit of a non-conforming, un-reinforced masonry building.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the proposed work does not meet an imminent threat, and is not eligible as an emergency protective measure. Additionally, the proposed work is not eligible permanent work since it does not repair damage. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes a final decision of this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
Enclosure

cc: John Pennington
Regional Director
FEMA, Region X

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The Washington State Legislative Building was damaged in the Nisqually earthquake on February 28, 2001. Originally constructed in 1926, the Legislative Building is a four-story, 235,500 square foot, un-reinforced masonry and stone structure. The building is operated and maintained by the State Department of General Administration (Applicant). The Washington State Senate and House of Representatives and several other State offices occupy it. The structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

First Appeal
The Applicant submitted a first appeal on May 19, 2004. The Applicant appealed two eligibility issues: 1) costs associated with beaded mortar grout joint as part of building restoration ($548,777), and, 2) costs to secure the entablature (or “wing colonnade soffit”) areas ($1,520,413). The appeal contended that FEMA required the Applicant to change the concave grout joint profile to a beaded joint profile. The Applicant incurred additional expenses as a result of the change, and believed that FEMA should pay for the additional costs. The Applicant requested that the damages discovered in January 2003, to the entablature area be allowed as eligible damages. The Applicant contended that circumstances beyond its control justify the late discovery of the damages. The grantee, the Washington Emergency Management Division (EMD), concurred with FEMA’s decision to deny eligibility for the beaded grout work; but recommended reversal of FEMA’s denial of eligibility of the entablature damage repairs. The appeal was denied by letter dated September 24, 2004, where FEMA determined that the beaded grout joint work was not required as a result of a major disaster event and was therefore, ineligible under the provisions of 44 CFR § 226.223(a)(1). FEMA also found the repair work to the entablature ineligible for reimbursement, citing 44 CFR § 206.202(c)(d) and (f)(2) which establish that the disaster damage must be identified by the reporting deadline and the proposed work is ineligible as it addressed a pre-existing design deficiency, rather than repair of damage caused by the earthquake.

Second Appeal
The second appeal was transmitted through the EMD by letter dated January 3, 2004. The appeal disputes the basis of FEMA’s eligibility analysis and seeks funding for work associated with repair of the Legislative Building wing soffit totaling $1,520,413. The grantee supports the Applicant’s appeal and does not believe the denial was an appropriate decision.

DISCUSSION
The freestanding columns at the east and west wings of the Legislative Building support a masonry lintel at the fourth floor, which then supports a perimeter balcony. The entablature is a hollow, box-shaped area directly beneath the perimeter balcony, situated approximately four feet between the stone soffit and the balcony concrete slab. It spans the columns, above the wing colonnade system. A number of light fixtures are housed within the floor of the entablature, with electrical connections placed horizontally through the hollow void, then oriented down through the floor of the entablature, where the light fixture attaches.
After the earthquake, damage inspections were limited to visual observations of the soffit from below and the balcony from above. No damage was observed or reported to FEMA. The interior of the entablature was not inspected following the earthquake because of difficulty accessing the area. During the design phase of a renovation project, the City of Olympia Building Department raised concerns about bracing of the perimeter columns at the east and west wings and required an evaluation of the entablature. At that time, almost two years after the earthquake, the entablature was inspected and a crack was discovered in the balcony slabs on both the east and west sides. An Applicant employee recalled that the crack on the eastern side existed prior to the Nisqually earthquake. A memo from the structural engineer for the renovation project was included in the appeal package. In it, he described spalled brick associated with balcony slab movement and indicated that the crack in the slab, approximately 0.25-0.50 inches, appeared to be the result of out-of-plane movement of the freestanding columns/lintels during the earthquake. He did not describe any other details pertaining to damage resulting from the Nisqually earthquake. Nor was any repair solution offered for the slab crack and brick damage.

In reference to the project at the upper rotunda colonnade, the Applicant’s structural engineer determined that the cost of moving columns and lintels back to their original position was not considered feasible or cost effective, hence a structural brace repair scheme was implemented on the dome repair project. There is no mention of the columns or concrete slab being out of alignment at the fourth floor level, which would necessitate an urgent or extensive repair. The engineer’s memo did not mention any pertinent structural damage resulting from the earthquake, such as if the columns had shifted or the slab was misaligned. The structural engineer went on to propose a seismic bracing system to connect all the perimeter lintels to the fourth floor slab (and hence all 56 freestanding columns), but indicated that frictional resistance between the lintels and the freestanding columns is adequate to resist out of plane forces. It is significant to note that the only safety concern mentioned in the engineer’s memo was to apply the seismic bracing at all the lintels/columns to make them less vulnerable to future movement and possible failure of the balcony. Such a statement indicates a recommendation for seismic retrofit of the fourth floor balcony system rather than repair of a specific damaged element. The proposed structural solution includes installation of a horizontal, steel-reinforced concrete slab on top of the balcony slab, directly beneath the roof membrane system to connect the building structure to the parapet wall. The solution also includes fabrication and bolting of 3-inch steel angles set at 5-foot intervals inside the entablature area to anchor the vertical face of the enclosure to the building structure.

The Applicant cites work done to tie the dome colonnades to the adjacent structural system, as a similar situation. The dome columns had moved out of alignment during the earthquake and presented an imminent hazard for failure. Realigning the columns was physically impossible so the columns were secured to the adjacent structure as an emergency protective measure, Category B project, to prevent further displacement or possible failure. The only similarity between the two projects is both require securing un-reinforced elements to the building.

The Applicant has not presented any determination or study to assess the impact of the earthquake damage (cracking and spalled brick) on the structural integrity of the entablature. The Applicant stated that it does not intend to repair the cracking and masonry damage found in the interior of the entablature system. The appeal does not offer any proposal for repairs to the identified damage. The proposed work is a seismic retrofit of a non-conforming, un-reinforced masonry building. The damage that was caused by the disaster (cracking and spalling) will not be repaired, as it is not readily visible to the building occupants. No evidence was presented to indicate the earthquake compromised the integrity of the entablature structure.

CONCLUSION
The proposed work is a seismic retrofit. Because the proposed work does not meet an imminent threat, it is not eligible as an emergency protective measure. Additionally, the proposed work is not eligible permanent work since it does not repair damage. Accordingly, the appeal is