Ocean Outfall Booster Station, Emergency Protective

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantCounty Sanitation Districts of Orange County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#059-91108
PW ID#98650
Date Signed1997-09-11T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; County Sanitation Districts of Orange County;
DSR 98650

Cross-Reference: Immediate threat, Eligibility, and Emergency work.

Summary: The Ocean Outfall Booster Station (OOBS) consists primarily of five pumps. These pumps are used to pump treated wastewater to an ocean discharge point five miles offshore. During the 1995 winter storms, the OOBS at times pumped well over its design capacity to keep up with incoming flows. This situation caused extensive vibration and high heat in the pumping system. After the storms subsided, the subgrantee hired a contractor to conduct tests on the pumps and determine if any permanent damage to the pumps occurred. Category B damage survey report (DSR) 98650 was originally prepared to cover the costs ($68,566) associated with this testing. During review FEMA determined that there was no damage to the pumps. Therefore, the proposed scope of work was determined to be ineligible. The subgrantee appealed. Denying the first appeal, FEMA stated that there was not sufficient evidence to support that an immediate threat existed that would warrant the system testing as an emergency protective measures. The subgrantee submitted a second appeal, and stated that the disaster caused the OOBS design capacity to be exceeded and that the evaluation of the facility was an emergency protective measure to protect the public health and the environment. The subgrantee contended that if the pumps had been damaged, the treated wastewater would have been discharged into the Santa Ana River, compromising the public health. Therefore, the subgrantee stated that pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), FEMA should consider funding the contractor costs.

Issues: Is pump testing an emergency protective measure?

Findings: Testing of pumps is not an eligible emergency protective measure because there was no specific damage to the pump and no specific threat existed.

Rationale: To be eligible for emergency assistance pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a), the subgrantee must demonstrate that the work was performed specifically to lessen an immediate threat to life, public health or safety.

Appeal Letter

September 11, 1997

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678

Dear Mr. Najera:

This is in response to your February 7, 1997, submittal of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County's second appeal of damage survey report 98650 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County is requesting reimbursement for the costs associated with testing pumps at the Ocean Outfall Booster Station.

I have reviewed the case and have determined that the cost associated with testing pumps is ineligible for FEMA assistance. The primary reason for this determination is that there is not sufficient evidence to support that an immediate threat to life or public health existed that warranted testing the pumps. Consequently, I have denied the appeal. The basis for my determination is further explained 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 should 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

BACKGROUND
The Ocean Outfall Booster Station (OOBS) is a component of the wastewater treatment system and primarily consists of five pumps. The OOBS pumps the treated wastewater to the ocean discharge point five miles offshore. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County is the subgrantee and is responsible for operation and maintenance of the wastewater treatment system. The OOBS has a design capacity of 480 million gallons per day (MGD). During the 1995 winter storm, the OOBS at times pumped well over its design capacity (in excess of 550 MGD) to keep up with the incoming flows. During these high flows, the OOBS was reported to have experienced extensive vibration and high heat. After the storms subsided, the subgrantee determined that it was necessary to have the system tested to determine if any permanent damage to the pumps occurred. The subgrantee requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to reimburse the costs associated with the testing performed by a contractor. As a result, a Category B damage survey report (DSR) 98650 was prepared for $68,566 to cover the cost of the contractor. During the review of the DSR, the work was determined to be ineligible because no damage occurred to the OOBS as a result of the disaster.

First Appeal
With a July 12, 1996, letter, the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State) transmitted the subgrantee's May 14, 1996, first appeal. The subgrantee contended that the disaster caused the design capacity of the pumps to be exceeded and they had reason to believe that an immediate threat to the community existed if the pumps were damaged. Therefore, the subgrantee stated that the testing was performed as an emergency protective measure to protect the public health and environment. The State supported the subgrantee's appeal. FEMA denied the first appeal and stated that although the capacity of the pumps was periodically exceeded during the disaster, no specific damage or malfunction was documented. Further, FEMA concluded that because no specific damages to the pump system were documented, there was not sufficient evidence to support that a potential threat existed due to malfunctioning of the pumps.

Second Appeal
The State's February 7, 1997, letter transmitted the subgrantee's December 5, 1996, second appeal of DSR 98650 to FEMA. The subgrantee mentioned that the disaster caused the OOBS design capacity to be exceeded. The pumps reportedly experienced extensive vibration, high heat and high electrical voltage and amperage that resulted in the shut down of a pump. The subgrantee contended that it was their fiduciary duty to determine if the OOBS had been permanently damaged. The subgrantee further stated that if the facility had been damaged and the OOBS rendered inoperable, wastewater would have been discharged into the Santa Ana River, compromising the public health and violating the District's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit. The subgrantee stated that the testing of the system was an emergency protective measures. The subgrantee asserts that "FEMA-1044-DR" caused the OOBS design capacity to be exceeded and that the evaluation of the facility was an emergency protective measure to protect the public health and the environment. The subgrantee argues that pursuant to 44 CFR 206.225(a)(3), the work described in the DSR 98650 should be eligible for FEMA funding.

DISCUSSION
Although the capacity of the pumps was periodically exceeded during the disaster, no specific damage or malfunction of the pumps was documented. The subgrantee stated "the high temperature caused the OOBS Pump No. 3 to shutdown." Review of the documentation indicates that Pump No. 3 went off line from "high LCI temperature" and was subsequently brought back on-line. This indicates that there was no specific damage to the pump and no specific threat existed. There is not sufficient evidence to support that an immediate threat to life or public health or safety existed that warranted the testing of the system. FEMA agrees with the its first appeal determination that although testing of the system may have been a prudent measure for the subgrantee to take after the high levels of usage during the disaster, such testing is not considered an eligible emergency protective measure. According to Public Assistance regulations, "to be eligible for emergency assistance, the subgrantee must demonstrate that the work was performed specifically to lessen an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or an immediate threat of significant damage to improved public or private property" (206.225).

CONCLUSION
Based on the review of the submitted documentation, we conclude that the cost associated with testing of the OOBS pumps is ineligible for FEMA funding. Accordingly, the subgrantee's second appeal is denied.
Last updated