This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Road Shoulder Repairs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
B>Citation: FEMA-1093-DR-PA; DSR 63835; PA ID 000-92003
Cross
Reference: Road repair; storm and flood damage.
Summary: Runoff water from the storm caused damage to State Road 1006 in the form of undermined road-edge and eroded shoulders. DSR 63835 was written to approve PennDOT's expenditure of $1,801 for repairing the 1,500 feet of eroded shoulder, and PennDOT was asked to present details of expenditures for repairing the 1,450 feet of road-edge damage. FEMA's reviewer ruled that the road repair was ineligible because the damage was pre-existing. PennDOT appealed the ineligible determination and requested an additional $11,002 to repair the road using three-foot wide patches. The Regional Director agreed to reinstate the road-edge repair in the DSR but did not approve the method of repair because two additional feet of undamaged road would have to be removed to repair a one-foot section. The applicant submitted the same second appeal with calculations to show that the one-foot wide strips were more expensive than the three-foot wide strips for repairing the road. The applicant also stated that an applicable code required no pavement cuts within three feet of the road-edge.
Issue: Should PennDOT be awarded $11,002 to repair the road-edge damage by excavating an addition two feet of roadway in the repair?
Findings: No. Our review of the calculations shows that the comparison was invalid because different rules applied to the options. Further, our calculations show that expenditures for the repair are $2,835.55. The DSR will be increased by this amount. Codes and standards in the area are not followed or are not uniformly enforced.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.226 absolves FEMA from any code requirement and obligates FEMA to repair a damaged facility only to its predisaster condition.
Runoff waters from the January 1996 storms and flooding disaster (FEMA-1093-DR-PA) resulted in damage to State Road 1006, a 1.6-mile long bituminous surface two-lane non Federal-Aid road. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) inspection team documented the damage as consisting of the erosion of 1,500 feet of shoulders and the breakup of 1,450 linear feet of pavement edge. The pavement edge damage was made up of fourteen sections of varying lengths amounting to 1,300 feet that required one-foot wide strips to repair, and one 150-foot long section requiring a two-foot wide strip. The shoulder was identified as requiring 1,500 feet of two-foot wide repairs. Damage survey report (DSR) 63835 was written for the stabilization of the road shoulder at a cost of $1,801, and included estimated costs for pavement repair. On review in FEMA's regional office, however, the pavement repair work was deleted from the DSR because the damage was determined to have been preexisting.
PennDOT submitted a September 16, 1996, first appeal of FEMA's determination that the pavement repair was ineligible and the deletion from the DSR of the bituminous quantities it had indicated for the repairs. PennDOT requested that the DSR cost be increased by $11,002, a figure that significantly exceeded FEMA's initial estimated cost. The reason for the difference was that FEMA assessed that the road-edge damage was repairable with one-foot wide sections of pavement while PennDOT insisted that three-foot sections were required. The applicant stated that it was standard practice in Engineering District 4-0 to replace pavement in three-foot wide segments, which it claimed was a more cost effective repair than with one-foot wide segments. In a February 28, 1997, letter to the Regional Director, the Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) forwarded the appeal reiterating that the applicant's standard pavement replacement procedures required the replacement to cover a three-foot wide repair area. The GAR added that PennDOT had provided sufficient information to support its claim that the repair procedure was a sound and reasonable practice that was universally applied. FEMA's Regional Director responded on February 28, 1997, reinstating the pavement repair work on the DSR but denying the request for additional funding for expanding the scope of work. The Regional Director made the observation that PennDOT's method of repairing the damage was to remove two additional feet of undamaged bituminous in order to repair a one-foot wide damaged area.
PennDOT submitted a May 13, 1997, second appeal claiming that the appeal resulted from a FEMA/PEMA disagreement regarding standard pavement replacement practices. PennDOT presented its justification for the selected method of pavement repair with calculations showing that the cost of performing pavement repairs with three-foot wide strips was $8.22 per linear foot versus $12.60 per linear foot for one-foot wide strips. PennDOT claimed, therefore, that it was more cost effective to approve the repairs to the road using three-foot wide segments. PennDOT also cited the Pennsylvania Code, Title 67 as prohibiting "leaving a cut within three feet of the joint." The GAR forwarded the appeal in a July 8, 1997, letter supporting PennDOT's position with the observation that replacement of bituminous pavement in three-foot wide sections was less expensive than the same length at one-foot wide because the latter was more labor intensive.
Discussion
FEMA has already agreed to repair the damaged pavement at the edge of the road. The issue in this appeal is whether PennDOT should be funded to repair the road by the excavation and re-paving in three-foot wide sections instead of one-foot wide sections as was determined to be necessary and adequate. Examination of the calculations presented by the applicant for the cost effectiveness of both methods reveals some discrepancies affecting the result.
1. SR 1006 is a two-lane Class D or E local collector road that is approximately 1.6 miles long with average daily traffic count of no more than 1,000. A review of the Pavement Removal detail depicts an excavation sectional thickness of 5< inches for this roadway (4" BCBC + 1<" Wearing). (The original aggregate base was not affected.) However, PennDOT's calculations for hand excavation are based on 12<" depth.
2. PennDOT based its excavation of the one-foot wide trench by hand at $52.80 per square yard but only $8.75 per square yard for the three-foot wide excavation under Contract EP-39399. The anomaly is caused by the former having to be done with manual labor because PennDOT claims that it does not possess equipment suitable to excavate a one-foot wide trench to repair the pavement. FEMA has determined that backhoes capable of accepting a one-foot width bucket to excavate a one-foot wide trench are in the applicant's inventory.
3. The calculations include two flaggers in the one-foot wide repair costs but this item is paid under a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic pay item in Contract EP-39399. This cost must be treated alike in the comparison.
From the above discrepancies, the claim by the applicant that it is more cost effective to make the repair sections three feet wide was not justified and FEMA, therefore, will not authorize funding repairs to the damaged edge of the pavement by excavating two feet more than is necessary. The applicant refers to a Pennsylvania Code that requires the repairs to be performed with three-foot wide segments. It is FEMA's observation that engineers and contractors responsible for making repairs to roads in the state generally do not follow these codes, and that the codes are not uniformly enforced when they are enforced. Therefore, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226(b)(4)-(5), FEMA is not obligated to fund repairs to the codes cited.
Our calculations for the repairs to the pavement damaged area of 1,300 feet by one foot and 150 feet by two feet-total of 1,600 square feet-show the costs to be $4,380.55 as indicated hereunder.
Force account labor - $1,575.00
Applicant's equipment - 1,097.55
Materials - 1,738.00
Total - $4,380.55
Therefore, FEMA will prepare a supplement to DSR 63835 for $2,835.55, the eligible costs of equipment and materials on the project. The costs of the applicant's regular time employees are not eligible.
Conclusion
PennDOT has not presented data to justify its claims that the repairs to SR 1006 are required to be done in three-foot wide segments. Because the pavement damage was limited to the road-edge, FEMA will only authorize the repairs using one-foot wide repair strips with the exception of the 150-foot damaged section that requires a two-foot wide strip. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226, FEMA will repair damages to the road on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster. FEMA has determined the extent of the damage and has made a careful assessment of the condition of the road prior to the disaster. FEMA has also determined that there are no enforceable codes requiring that repairs be done differently.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1093-DR |
| Applicant | Pennsylvania Department of Transportation |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 000-92003 |
| PW ID# | 63835 |
| Date Signed | 1997-10-14T04:00:00 |
Cross
Reference: Road repair; storm and flood damage.
Summary: Runoff water from the storm caused damage to State Road 1006 in the form of undermined road-edge and eroded shoulders. DSR 63835 was written to approve PennDOT's expenditure of $1,801 for repairing the 1,500 feet of eroded shoulder, and PennDOT was asked to present details of expenditures for repairing the 1,450 feet of road-edge damage. FEMA's reviewer ruled that the road repair was ineligible because the damage was pre-existing. PennDOT appealed the ineligible determination and requested an additional $11,002 to repair the road using three-foot wide patches. The Regional Director agreed to reinstate the road-edge repair in the DSR but did not approve the method of repair because two additional feet of undamaged road would have to be removed to repair a one-foot section. The applicant submitted the same second appeal with calculations to show that the one-foot wide strips were more expensive than the three-foot wide strips for repairing the road. The applicant also stated that an applicable code required no pavement cuts within three feet of the road-edge.
Issue: Should PennDOT be awarded $11,002 to repair the road-edge damage by excavating an addition two feet of roadway in the repair?
Findings: No. Our review of the calculations shows that the comparison was invalid because different rules applied to the options. Further, our calculations show that expenditures for the repair are $2,835.55. The DSR will be increased by this amount. Codes and standards in the area are not followed or are not uniformly enforced.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.226 absolves FEMA from any code requirement and obligates FEMA to repair a damaged facility only to its predisaster condition.
Appeal Letter
October 14, 1997
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your July 8, 1997, letter forwarding the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT's) second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 63835. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wrote the DSR to repair damages that State Road 1006 sustained from the storm and flood disaster of January 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR-PA). FEMA approved repairs to 1,500 feet of road shoulder at a cost of $1,801, but determined that the repairs to 1,450 feet of roadway pavement edge were ineligible because the damage was pre-existing. On first appeal, the Regional Director agreed to reinstate the pavement repairs on the DSR, but did not approve the method of repair proposed by PennDOT.
In this second appeal, the applicant claims that repairs to the damage to the road-edge are required by existing code to be done in three-foot wide segments, and presents its calculations to show that this method is more cost effective than using one-foot wide segments. I have reviewed the documentation presented with the second appeal and find that PennDOT's claim is without merit. I am, therefore denying this second appeal. My reasons for the denial are contained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal 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
Enclosure
Mr. Charles F. Wynne
Governor's Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
P.O. Box 3321
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Dear Mr. Wynne:
This is in response to your July 8, 1997, letter forwarding the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT's) second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 63835. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wrote the DSR to repair damages that State Road 1006 sustained from the storm and flood disaster of January 1996 (FEMA-1093-DR-PA). FEMA approved repairs to 1,500 feet of road shoulder at a cost of $1,801, but determined that the repairs to 1,450 feet of roadway pavement edge were ineligible because the damage was pre-existing. On first appeal, the Regional Director agreed to reinstate the pavement repairs on the DSR, but did not approve the method of repair proposed by PennDOT.
In this second appeal, the applicant claims that repairs to the damage to the road-edge are required by existing code to be done in three-foot wide segments, and presents its calculations to show that this method is more cost effective than using one-foot wide segments. I have reviewed the documentation presented with the second appeal and find that PennDOT's claim is without merit. I am, therefore denying this second appeal. My reasons for the denial are contained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal 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
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BackgroundRunoff waters from the January 1996 storms and flooding disaster (FEMA-1093-DR-PA) resulted in damage to State Road 1006, a 1.6-mile long bituminous surface two-lane non Federal-Aid road. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) inspection team documented the damage as consisting of the erosion of 1,500 feet of shoulders and the breakup of 1,450 linear feet of pavement edge. The pavement edge damage was made up of fourteen sections of varying lengths amounting to 1,300 feet that required one-foot wide strips to repair, and one 150-foot long section requiring a two-foot wide strip. The shoulder was identified as requiring 1,500 feet of two-foot wide repairs. Damage survey report (DSR) 63835 was written for the stabilization of the road shoulder at a cost of $1,801, and included estimated costs for pavement repair. On review in FEMA's regional office, however, the pavement repair work was deleted from the DSR because the damage was determined to have been preexisting.
PennDOT submitted a September 16, 1996, first appeal of FEMA's determination that the pavement repair was ineligible and the deletion from the DSR of the bituminous quantities it had indicated for the repairs. PennDOT requested that the DSR cost be increased by $11,002, a figure that significantly exceeded FEMA's initial estimated cost. The reason for the difference was that FEMA assessed that the road-edge damage was repairable with one-foot wide sections of pavement while PennDOT insisted that three-foot sections were required. The applicant stated that it was standard practice in Engineering District 4-0 to replace pavement in three-foot wide segments, which it claimed was a more cost effective repair than with one-foot wide segments. In a February 28, 1997, letter to the Regional Director, the Governor's Authorized Representative (GAR) forwarded the appeal reiterating that the applicant's standard pavement replacement procedures required the replacement to cover a three-foot wide repair area. The GAR added that PennDOT had provided sufficient information to support its claim that the repair procedure was a sound and reasonable practice that was universally applied. FEMA's Regional Director responded on February 28, 1997, reinstating the pavement repair work on the DSR but denying the request for additional funding for expanding the scope of work. The Regional Director made the observation that PennDOT's method of repairing the damage was to remove two additional feet of undamaged bituminous in order to repair a one-foot wide damaged area.
PennDOT submitted a May 13, 1997, second appeal claiming that the appeal resulted from a FEMA/PEMA disagreement regarding standard pavement replacement practices. PennDOT presented its justification for the selected method of pavement repair with calculations showing that the cost of performing pavement repairs with three-foot wide strips was $8.22 per linear foot versus $12.60 per linear foot for one-foot wide strips. PennDOT claimed, therefore, that it was more cost effective to approve the repairs to the road using three-foot wide segments. PennDOT also cited the Pennsylvania Code, Title 67 as prohibiting "leaving a cut within three feet of the joint." The GAR forwarded the appeal in a July 8, 1997, letter supporting PennDOT's position with the observation that replacement of bituminous pavement in three-foot wide sections was less expensive than the same length at one-foot wide because the latter was more labor intensive.
Discussion
FEMA has already agreed to repair the damaged pavement at the edge of the road. The issue in this appeal is whether PennDOT should be funded to repair the road by the excavation and re-paving in three-foot wide sections instead of one-foot wide sections as was determined to be necessary and adequate. Examination of the calculations presented by the applicant for the cost effectiveness of both methods reveals some discrepancies affecting the result.
1. SR 1006 is a two-lane Class D or E local collector road that is approximately 1.6 miles long with average daily traffic count of no more than 1,000. A review of the Pavement Removal detail depicts an excavation sectional thickness of 5< inches for this roadway (4" BCBC + 1<" Wearing). (The original aggregate base was not affected.) However, PennDOT's calculations for hand excavation are based on 12<" depth.
2. PennDOT based its excavation of the one-foot wide trench by hand at $52.80 per square yard but only $8.75 per square yard for the three-foot wide excavation under Contract EP-39399. The anomaly is caused by the former having to be done with manual labor because PennDOT claims that it does not possess equipment suitable to excavate a one-foot wide trench to repair the pavement. FEMA has determined that backhoes capable of accepting a one-foot width bucket to excavate a one-foot wide trench are in the applicant's inventory.
3. The calculations include two flaggers in the one-foot wide repair costs but this item is paid under a Maintenance and Protection of Traffic pay item in Contract EP-39399. This cost must be treated alike in the comparison.
From the above discrepancies, the claim by the applicant that it is more cost effective to make the repair sections three feet wide was not justified and FEMA, therefore, will not authorize funding repairs to the damaged edge of the pavement by excavating two feet more than is necessary. The applicant refers to a Pennsylvania Code that requires the repairs to be performed with three-foot wide segments. It is FEMA's observation that engineers and contractors responsible for making repairs to roads in the state generally do not follow these codes, and that the codes are not uniformly enforced when they are enforced. Therefore, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226(b)(4)-(5), FEMA is not obligated to fund repairs to the codes cited.
Our calculations for the repairs to the pavement damaged area of 1,300 feet by one foot and 150 feet by two feet-total of 1,600 square feet-show the costs to be $4,380.55 as indicated hereunder.
Force account labor - $1,575.00
Applicant's equipment - 1,097.55
Materials - 1,738.00
Total - $4,380.55
Therefore, FEMA will prepare a supplement to DSR 63835 for $2,835.55, the eligible costs of equipment and materials on the project. The costs of the applicant's regular time employees are not eligible.
Conclusion
PennDOT has not presented data to justify its claims that the repairs to SR 1006 are required to be done in three-foot wide segments. Because the pavement damage was limited to the road-edge, FEMA will only authorize the repairs using one-foot wide repair strips with the exception of the 150-foot damaged section that requires a two-foot wide strip. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226, FEMA will repair damages to the road on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster. FEMA has determined the extent of the damage and has made a careful assessment of the condition of the road prior to the disaster. FEMA has also determined that there are no enforceable codes requiring that repairs be done differently.