alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Debris Removal

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1247-DR
ApplicantMunicipality of Rio Grande
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#119-00000
PW ID#11910
Date Signed2004-08-01T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1247-DR-PR; Municipality of Rio Grande, Debris Removal; Project Worksheet (PW) 11910

Cross-reference: Time Limitations; Debris Removal

Summary: Hurricane Georges impacted the Municipality of Rio Grande (Applicant) in September of 1998, resulting in major disaster declaration FEMA-1247-DR-PR on September 24, 1998. As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared PW 11910 on April 19, 2000, for $526,822 to remove approximately 49,530 cubic yards (CY) of debris. The Applicant submitted a first appeal on December 22, 2000, seeking reimbursement of $1,059,000 for the total quantity of debris removed by its contractor (70,600 CY). The FEMA Caribbean Area Office Disaster Recovery Manager denied the appeal on March 9, 2001, because the Applicant claimed reimbursement for non-disaster debris and the quantities did not coincide with previously agreed upon amounts of debris. Also, the Applicant failed to submit the appeal within the 60-day regulatory timeframe. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 6, 2003, two and one half years after the first appeal decision and requested reimbursement of $2,503,961 for additional plastic sheeting costs, an adjustment in the compaction factor, ineligible tipping fees, debris already accounted for, and sewage treatment. However, the Applicant requested that the appeal not be processed until it could submit additional information. The Applicant submitted the additional information on April 1, 2004, three years after the first appeal decision and requested an additional $341,595 for debris removal, which it stated that FEMA erroneously under-obligated previously. The State does not support the Applicant’s appeal for $2,845,556.
Issues: Was the appeal submitted in a timely manner?

Findings: No. The Applicant submitted its second appeal two and one half years after the first appeal decision, well past the 60-day regulatory timeframe.

Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.206(c)(1)

Appeal Letter

August 1, 2004

Ms. Melba Acosta, Esquire
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Post Office Box 902-1812
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00902-1812

Re: Second Appeal – Municipality of Rio Grande, PA ID# 119-00000, Debris Removal, FEMA-1247-DR-PR; Project Worksheet (PW) 11910

Dear Ms. Acosta:

This is in response to your letters dated November 26, 2003, and April 12, 2004, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Municipality of Rio Grande (Applicant). The Applicant is requesting reconsideration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) determination on the amount of funding for debris removal operations following Hurricane Georges in 1998 along with other various costs associated with that disaster. The amount in dispute is $2,845,556.

Hurricane Georges impacted the Applicant in September of 1998, resulting in major disaster declaration FEMA-1247-DR-PR on September 24, 1998. As a result, FEMA prepared PW 11910 on April 19, 2000, for $526,822 to remove approximately 49,530 cubic yards (CY) of debris.

The Applicant submitted a first appeal on December 22, 2000, seeking reimbursement of $1,059,000 for the total quantity of debris (70,600 CY) removed by its contractor. The FEMA Caribbean Area Office Disaster Recovery Manager denied the appeal on March 9, 2001, because it claimed reimbursement for non-disaster debris and the quantities did not coincide with previously agreed upon amounts of debris. Also, the Applicant failed to submit the appeal within the 60-day regulatory timeframe.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 6, 2003, two and one half years after the first appeal decision and requested reimbursement of $2,503,961 for additional plastic sheeting costs, an adjustment in the compaction factor, ineligible tipping fees, debris already accounted for, and sewage treatment. However, the Applicant requested that the appeal not be processed until it could submit additional information. The Applicant submitted the additional information on April 1, 2004, three years after the first appeal decision and requested an additional $341,595 for debris removal, which it stated that FEMA erroneously under-obligated previously.

44 CFR § 206.206(c)(1) states that appeals must be filed within 60 days after receipt of a notice of the action that is being appealed, in this case, the first appeal decision. The Applicant did not submit its second appeal until two and one half years after the first appeal decision. Based on this reason, 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/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response

cc: Jose A. Bravo
Disaster Recovery Manager
Caribbean Area Office