This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Wastewater Collection System
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation FEMA-1295-DR-NJ, PA ID # 021-29310-00, Hamilton Township, PW 850, Wastewater Collection System
Cross-reference Pre-existing Condition, Improved Project, Repair vs. Replacement
Summary Hurricane Floyd damaged three sections of Hamilton Township's (Township) sanitary main interceptor line. The Township submitted a Project Worksheet (PW) claiming $125,560 in costs related to replacing a 347-ft section of the line. FEMA found the PW ineligible because the Township had replaced the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing the three failed sections of pipe. The Township appealed this determination on January 21, 2000, claiming that it was not practical to replace only the collapsed sections of pipe. It also claimed that costs related to pumping and other items of work were reasonable. FEMA approved $25,328 for this appeal on August 17, 2000. PW 850.1 allows for the estimated cost of eligible items of work, which include the replacement of damaged sections of the pipe and associated road repairs, among other items. FEMA did not approve the replacement of 347 lf of pipe, as the Township had requested. FEMA stated that evidence indicated the pipe was damaged prior to the disaster. The Township submitted its second appeal on October 27, 2000. It claims that storm damage weakened the pipe from manhole to manhole and it is common to replace pipe in one continuous length. In addition, it states that FEMA appears unwilling to reimburse work on older structures. It also argues for the use of PVC pipe, the cost of by-pass pumping, and force account overtime and equipment.
Issues 1) Did the cost to repair this facility to its pre-disaster condition exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost, or was repair infeasible? 2) Were claimed costs related to the repair of disaster-related damages? 3) Did the Township make improvements to the facility, while maintaining its function?
Findings 1) No. 2) No. 3) Yes, therefore reimbursement is limited to the approved estimate of eligible costs.
Rationale 44 CFR 206.226(d), 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1), 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1)
Following Hurricane Floyd, the Township submitted a PW for $125,560 in costs related to replacing 347 lf of sanitary main interceptor line. Other expenses included pumping, repairing road surfaces, and force account labor and equipment. Work had been completed by October 2, 1999. FEMA and the State met with the Township on November 15, 1999, to discuss the project. On December 18, 1999, FEMA found the PW ineligible because the Township had replaced the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing the three failed sections of pipe. FEMA also stated that the pumping charges were excessive and the stand-by pump was not eligible. In addition, FEMA denied the cost to repave the entire street.
FIRST APPEAL
The Township appealed this determination on January 21, 2000. It claimed that it was not feasible or practical to replace just the collapsed sections of pipe (approximately 36 lf). It also stated that FEMA did not account for the high cost of procuring a by-pass pump immediately following a disaster, nor allot enough time for pumping to take place. In addition, the Township questioned why FEMA did not approve vehicle usage associated with the stand-by pumping. It stated that due to oversight, no photographs were taken of the disaster-related damage prior to the completion of work.
FEMA partially approved this appeal on August 17, 2000. It denied the majority of the Township's claims, but prepared PW 850.1 for $25,328 to cover eligible costs associated with this project. Specifically, FEMA allowed for the replacement of damaged sections of the pipe and related road repairs, among other items. However, it did not approve the replacement of 347 lf of pipe, as the Township had requested. FEMA stated that as a result of a meeting held May 26, 2000, and a videotape showing the condition of adjacent sections of the sanitary main interceptor line, it found that pipe was damaged prior to the disaster. Therefore, only the repair of collapsed sections was eligible.
SECOND APPEAL
On October 27, 2000, the Township submitted its second appeal. It claims that storm damage weakened the pipe from manhole to manhole and it is common to replace pipe in one continuous length. In addition, it states that FEMA appears unwilling to reimburse work on older structures. It also argues for the use of PVC pipe, the cost of by-pass pumping, and force account overtime and equipment. The State recommended that FEMA deny this appeal based on the pre-existing condition of the pipe, stating that the damage was due to long-term deterioration, and was not flood related.
DISCUSSION
In each of its requests the Township argues for the replacement of this facility, rather than its repair. The Township claims that repair was not feasible, but does not support this claim. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226(d), FEMA will replace a facility only if the cost of repair exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacement, or repair is not feasible. The Township also asserts that FEMA is unwilling to reimburse applicants for work on older structures. FEMA can only pay for work that is required as a result of the disaster event, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1), and in general will only restore a facility to its pre-disaster condition, regardless of age.
Damage to this facility was not reported in the preliminary damage assessment, nor did the Township take photographs or use other methods to document the disaster-related damage. The Township claims that the storm weakened the entire pipe, but site inspections and a videotape of adjacent portions of the pipe indicate that it was severely damaged prior to the disaster event.
This was an improved project; the Township made improvements to the facility (replacing the entire length of pipe), while maintaining the pre-disaster function of the facility. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), federal funding for improved projects is limited to the federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. FEMA's estimate of these costs was $25,328 and included only six days of pumping, that which would be necessary to repair the three collapsed sections, not the entire length of the pipe. In addition, the Township has not justified the high cost it paid to procure a by-pass pump; therefore FEMA's estimate for by-pass pumping is significantly lower than the Township's actual costs.
Finally, FEMA cannot reimburse the Township for costs associated with the performance of ineligible work, which includes the stand-by pump. The Township claims that the stand-by pump was mandatory, but does not provide a citation for this requirement. It states that the force account equipment (vehicles) was associated with the stand-by pump. Because the stand-by pump is not eligible, these associated costs are likewise not eligible. FEMA's estimate did include costs for force account overtime.
CONCLUSION
Because of the pre-existing damage to this facility and improvements made by the Township, FEMA can only pay for the estimated cost of repairing the collapsed portion of the line and associated expenses. Therefore, this appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1295-DR |
| Applicant | HAMILTON TOWNSHIP |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 021-29310 |
| PW ID# | 850.1 |
| Date Signed | 2001-04-20T04:00:00 |
Cross-reference Pre-existing Condition, Improved Project, Repair vs. Replacement
Summary Hurricane Floyd damaged three sections of Hamilton Township's (Township) sanitary main interceptor line. The Township submitted a Project Worksheet (PW) claiming $125,560 in costs related to replacing a 347-ft section of the line. FEMA found the PW ineligible because the Township had replaced the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing the three failed sections of pipe. The Township appealed this determination on January 21, 2000, claiming that it was not practical to replace only the collapsed sections of pipe. It also claimed that costs related to pumping and other items of work were reasonable. FEMA approved $25,328 for this appeal on August 17, 2000. PW 850.1 allows for the estimated cost of eligible items of work, which include the replacement of damaged sections of the pipe and associated road repairs, among other items. FEMA did not approve the replacement of 347 lf of pipe, as the Township had requested. FEMA stated that evidence indicated the pipe was damaged prior to the disaster. The Township submitted its second appeal on October 27, 2000. It claims that storm damage weakened the pipe from manhole to manhole and it is common to replace pipe in one continuous length. In addition, it states that FEMA appears unwilling to reimburse work on older structures. It also argues for the use of PVC pipe, the cost of by-pass pumping, and force account overtime and equipment.
Issues 1) Did the cost to repair this facility to its pre-disaster condition exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost, or was repair infeasible? 2) Were claimed costs related to the repair of disaster-related damages? 3) Did the Township make improvements to the facility, while maintaining its function?
Findings 1) No. 2) No. 3) Yes, therefore reimbursement is limited to the approved estimate of eligible costs.
Rationale 44 CFR 206.226(d), 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1), 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1)
Appeal Letter
April 20, 2001
Kevin J. Hayden
Governor's Authorized Representative
New Jersey Office of Emergency Management
Post Office Box 7068
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628-0068
Re: Second Appeal - Hamilton Township, Wastewater Collection System (at Bowhill Avenue), FEMA-1295-DR-NJ
Dear Captain Hayden:
This is in response to the referenced appeal, forwarded by your office on December 15, 2000. Hamilton Township (Township) is asking FEMA to reconsider its claim of $125,560 for expenses related to replacing sanitary main interceptor line at Bowhill Avenue.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, videotape of the adjacent line shows damage that existed prior to Hurricane Floyd and was the result of long-term deterioration, not the disaster. In addition, the Township made improvements to the facility by replacing the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing three damaged sections. Therefore, FEMA can only pay for the estimated cost to repair the collapsed sections of pipe, and associated expenses. For these reasons, I am denying the 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
Enclosure
cc: Joseph F. PiccianoActing Regional DirectorFEMA Region II
Kevin J. Hayden
Governor's Authorized Representative
New Jersey Office of Emergency Management
Post Office Box 7068
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628-0068
Re: Second Appeal - Hamilton Township, Wastewater Collection System (at Bowhill Avenue), FEMA-1295-DR-NJ
Dear Captain Hayden:
This is in response to the referenced appeal, forwarded by your office on December 15, 2000. Hamilton Township (Township) is asking FEMA to reconsider its claim of $125,560 for expenses related to replacing sanitary main interceptor line at Bowhill Avenue.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, videotape of the adjacent line shows damage that existed prior to Hurricane Floyd and was the result of long-term deterioration, not the disaster. In addition, the Township made improvements to the facility by replacing the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing three damaged sections. Therefore, FEMA can only pay for the estimated cost to repair the collapsed sections of pipe, and associated expenses. For these reasons, I am denying the 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
Enclosure
cc: Joseph F. PiccianoActing Regional DirectorFEMA Region II
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDFollowing Hurricane Floyd, the Township submitted a PW for $125,560 in costs related to replacing 347 lf of sanitary main interceptor line. Other expenses included pumping, repairing road surfaces, and force account labor and equipment. Work had been completed by October 2, 1999. FEMA and the State met with the Township on November 15, 1999, to discuss the project. On December 18, 1999, FEMA found the PW ineligible because the Township had replaced the line from manhole to manhole, rather than repairing the three failed sections of pipe. FEMA also stated that the pumping charges were excessive and the stand-by pump was not eligible. In addition, FEMA denied the cost to repave the entire street.
FIRST APPEAL
The Township appealed this determination on January 21, 2000. It claimed that it was not feasible or practical to replace just the collapsed sections of pipe (approximately 36 lf). It also stated that FEMA did not account for the high cost of procuring a by-pass pump immediately following a disaster, nor allot enough time for pumping to take place. In addition, the Township questioned why FEMA did not approve vehicle usage associated with the stand-by pumping. It stated that due to oversight, no photographs were taken of the disaster-related damage prior to the completion of work.
FEMA partially approved this appeal on August 17, 2000. It denied the majority of the Township's claims, but prepared PW 850.1 for $25,328 to cover eligible costs associated with this project. Specifically, FEMA allowed for the replacement of damaged sections of the pipe and related road repairs, among other items. However, it did not approve the replacement of 347 lf of pipe, as the Township had requested. FEMA stated that as a result of a meeting held May 26, 2000, and a videotape showing the condition of adjacent sections of the sanitary main interceptor line, it found that pipe was damaged prior to the disaster. Therefore, only the repair of collapsed sections was eligible.
SECOND APPEAL
On October 27, 2000, the Township submitted its second appeal. It claims that storm damage weakened the pipe from manhole to manhole and it is common to replace pipe in one continuous length. In addition, it states that FEMA appears unwilling to reimburse work on older structures. It also argues for the use of PVC pipe, the cost of by-pass pumping, and force account overtime and equipment. The State recommended that FEMA deny this appeal based on the pre-existing condition of the pipe, stating that the damage was due to long-term deterioration, and was not flood related.
DISCUSSION
In each of its requests the Township argues for the replacement of this facility, rather than its repair. The Township claims that repair was not feasible, but does not support this claim. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.226(d), FEMA will replace a facility only if the cost of repair exceeds 50 percent of the cost of replacement, or repair is not feasible. The Township also asserts that FEMA is unwilling to reimburse applicants for work on older structures. FEMA can only pay for work that is required as a result of the disaster event, in accordance with 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1), and in general will only restore a facility to its pre-disaster condition, regardless of age.
Damage to this facility was not reported in the preliminary damage assessment, nor did the Township take photographs or use other methods to document the disaster-related damage. The Township claims that the storm weakened the entire pipe, but site inspections and a videotape of adjacent portions of the pipe indicate that it was severely damaged prior to the disaster event.
This was an improved project; the Township made improvements to the facility (replacing the entire length of pipe), while maintaining the pre-disaster function of the facility. In accordance with 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1), federal funding for improved projects is limited to the federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs. FEMA's estimate of these costs was $25,328 and included only six days of pumping, that which would be necessary to repair the three collapsed sections, not the entire length of the pipe. In addition, the Township has not justified the high cost it paid to procure a by-pass pump; therefore FEMA's estimate for by-pass pumping is significantly lower than the Township's actual costs.
Finally, FEMA cannot reimburse the Township for costs associated with the performance of ineligible work, which includes the stand-by pump. The Township claims that the stand-by pump was mandatory, but does not provide a citation for this requirement. It states that the force account equipment (vehicles) was associated with the stand-by pump. Because the stand-by pump is not eligible, these associated costs are likewise not eligible. FEMA's estimate did include costs for force account overtime.
CONCLUSION
Because of the pre-existing damage to this facility and improvements made by the Township, FEMA can only pay for the estimated cost of repairing the collapsed portion of the line and associated expenses. Therefore, this appeal is denied.