Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 049-99049-00; Pacific County
PW ID# 924; Raymond Maintenance Shed
Citation: FEMA-1361-DR-WA; Pacific County; PW 924, Raymond Maintenance Shed
Cross-reference: Building Settlement; Disaster-Related Damage; Supporting Documentation
Summary: The Nisqually Earthquake caused damage to the Raymond Maintenance Shed. The southwest corner of the building reportedly settled approximately two-inches, causing an apparent split in a beam at the top of the wall, loosening of nails in vertical wall members at their attachment to the bottom of the affected roof beam, and loosening of the plywood sheets on the south wall. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 924 in the amount of $2,321 to repair the observed damages, including jacking and shimming of the southwest corner of the building, repairing the beam crack with epoxy injection, and re-nailing the loosened members. The Applicants first appeal stated that the PW did not adequately address the disaster-damages, indicating that the foundation required reinforcing to carry building loads, and that the repair with epoxy injection was not adequate for the cracked beam. The repair costs were estimated by the applicant to be $12,000 to shore the building, $15,000 to replace (rather than repair) the glue lam and framing, and $50,000 to repair the pile cap and footing (total estimate $83,006, including sales tax). The Regional Director denied the first appeal on the basis that the scope of work provided on PW 924 is sufficient to repair the documented disaster-related damages. It is noted that throughout this process, the State also maintains that the building sustained only minor, nonstructural damage, and that the structural integrity of the building has not been compromised such as to warrant an increased scope.The Applicants second appeal again requests the increased scope items and adjustment of funding. However, documentation such as building settlement surveys or structural or geotechnical engineering reports has not been provided to support that the structural integrity or load-carrying capacity of the foundation system has been compromised or that the structural integrity of the beam is damaged beyond repair by the proposed method.
Issues: 1. Are the additional scope items and increased costs eligible for funding?
Findings: 1. No. Sufficient technical information has not been provided by the Applicant to support the revised scope of work or costs.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.206