Hazardous Material Removal
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; Sutter County; County Service Area - F; PA ID 101-00000; DSR 93326.
Cross Reference: Winter storm and floods; Hazardous material disposal;
Summary: In the aftermath of the late December 1996 storms, FEMA wrote DSR 93326 for $20,724 for the retrieval and disposal of hazardous material that had been washed away by the floods and deposited in scattered areas of the County. The funding included $9,844 for overtime for the employees of the County Service Area-F (CSA-F), $1,599 for emergency hires, $8,378 for equipment and $903 for material. The County appealed FEMA disallowing funding of $7,143 straight time for the CSA-F employees and $27,172 in equipment charges. The Regional Director denied the appeal because 1) the CSA-F employees were County employees-their salaries and benefits derived from the County; and 2) the regulations stipulate that FEMA's equipment rates will be used when local equipment rates were higher. The applicant submitted a second appeal on the same grounds.
Issue: Should FEMA reverse its initial determination?
Findings: No. CSA-F is an agency that falls under the umbrella of Sutter County. Therefore, its employees are governed by 44 CFR 206.228. Only overtime for regular employees are refundable on the DSR. If extra hires are taken on to perform the duties of regular employees who are deployed to the disaster, salaries of the extra hires are refundable. Funding for emergency hires was included in the DSR. FEMA equipment rates apply to equipment used in the disaster.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.228, Allowable Costs, specifies how reimbursements are allowed for salaries and benefits of employees and the equipment rates that are applicable.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1155-DR |
| Applicant | Sutter County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 101-00000 |
| PW ID# | 93326 |
| Date Signed | 1999-02-08T05:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Winter storm and floods; Hazardous material disposal;
Summary: In the aftermath of the late December 1996 storms, FEMA wrote DSR 93326 for $20,724 for the retrieval and disposal of hazardous material that had been washed away by the floods and deposited in scattered areas of the County. The funding included $9,844 for overtime for the employees of the County Service Area-F (CSA-F), $1,599 for emergency hires, $8,378 for equipment and $903 for material. The County appealed FEMA disallowing funding of $7,143 straight time for the CSA-F employees and $27,172 in equipment charges. The Regional Director denied the appeal because 1) the CSA-F employees were County employees-their salaries and benefits derived from the County; and 2) the regulations stipulate that FEMA's equipment rates will be used when local equipment rates were higher. The applicant submitted a second appeal on the same grounds.
Issue: Should FEMA reverse its initial determination?
Findings: No. CSA-F is an agency that falls under the umbrella of Sutter County. Therefore, its employees are governed by 44 CFR 206.228. Only overtime for regular employees are refundable on the DSR. If extra hires are taken on to perform the duties of regular employees who are deployed to the disaster, salaries of the extra hires are refundable. Funding for emergency hires was included in the DSR. FEMA equipment rates apply to equipment used in the disaster.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.228, Allowable Costs, specifies how reimbursements are allowed for salaries and benefits of employees and the equipment rates that are applicable.
Appeal Letter
February 8, 1999
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your August 21, 1998, letter forwarding the Sutter County Community Services Department's second appeal of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 93326. The County is appealing FEMA's exclusion of payment for the regular time of the County Service Area-F (CSA-F) employees and the substitution of FEMA's equipment rates for vehicle use for the cleanup operation following the late December 1996 storm and flooding (FEMA-1155-DR-CA). The County utilized CSA-F employees and vehicles to retrieve and dispose of hazardous material that had been washed away by the floods and deposited in scattered areas of the County.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal, as well as our response to your first appeal (copy enclosed). I concluded that the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your August 21, 1998, letter forwarding the Sutter County Community Services Department's second appeal of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 93326. The County is appealing FEMA's exclusion of payment for the regular time of the County Service Area-F (CSA-F) employees and the substitution of FEMA's equipment rates for vehicle use for the cleanup operation following the late December 1996 storm and flooding (FEMA-1155-DR-CA). The County utilized CSA-F employees and vehicles to retrieve and dispose of hazardous material that had been washed away by the floods and deposited in scattered areas of the County.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal, as well as our response to your first appeal (copy enclosed). I concluded that the Regional Director's decision on the first appeal is consistent with program statute and regulations. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated