Embankment Erosion at Structure BMS #85-1013-0050-0165

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1093-DR
Applicant	Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	000-92003
PW ID#	64069
Date Signed	1997-11-24T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1093-DR-PA; Bedford County; DSR 64069

Cross-Reference: Preexisting condition, bridge scour, bridge abutment, and channel embankment.

Summary: Following flooding in January of 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) awarded a low-bid construction contract for repairs to flood-related damage at 59 roadway and 50 bridge sites in the county. The subject damage survey report (DSR) covers the cost for placing riprap at one of these bridge sites. The DSR data sheet, with an inspection date of May 20, 1996, includes a repair cost of $7,011.40. This amount was later revised to $4,214.25. The approved DSR dated June 6, 1996, denied all funding because "there is no eligible work that is disaster related at this site." This determination was made because the PennDOT Bridge Inspection Report dated January 5, 1996, identified preexisting scour at the near bridge abutment, and the evidence seemed to indicate that the repair work corrected this condition rather than erosion caused by the flood.

PennDOT made their first appeal by letter of August 28, 1996, stating that the "flood related damage is not along the abutment, but rather along the embankment." The first appeal was denied by FEMA because preexisting scour at the near bridge abutment had been noted on the Bridge Inspection Report. Since PennDOT had not repaired the aforementioned preexisting scoured area at the near bridge abutment prior to the flood, FEMA concluded that the riprap had been placed in this area.

PennDOT made their second appeal by letter of April 25, 1996, stating that they are ".not repairing the advanced scour along the near abutment." and that they ".are only repairing the eroded embankment which was caused by the flood." They also state that "The flood waters washed away this protection and caused the damage."

Issues: Did the flood cause the erosion?

Findings: Yes. The evidence presented on the DSR data sheet and backup calculation sheet indicates that the repairs were made to the embankment, and not where bridge scour typically would exist. The PennDOT has clearly stated the same in their second appeal.

Rationale: Title 44 CFR Part 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
In January of 1996, flooding occurred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Bedford County was subsequently included in the declared federal disaster area. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) awarded a construction contract, based on a low competitive bid, for repairs to flood-related damage at 59 roadway and 50 bridge sites in the county. The subject of this appeal is reimbursement for the contract costs for the placement of riprap at one of these bridge sites (Structure BMS #85-1013-0050-0165).

The damage survey report (DSR) data sheet, with an inspection date of May 20, 1996, includes a description of the damage repair as "8'L X 6'W X 3'D-repair embankment erosion," and a repair cost of $7,011.40. This amount represents actual cost for the work performed at the site. Three of the six pay items-mobilization, field office, and traffic control-were prorated by dividing the contractor's contract lump sum bid amount by the total number of repair sites of 109. A backup calculation sheet, tagged page 1 of 17 and undated, includes the notes "Narrative-embankment in good condition (preexisting)-repair with R6 rock-erosion caused by flooding Jan. 19, 1996."

The approved DSR dated June 6, 1996, and in the amount of $0, includes the statement that "there is no eligible work that is disaster related at this site." This determination was made because the PennDOT Bridge Inspection Report dated January 5, 1996, identified a condition of preexisting erosion at the near bridge abutment, and the evidence seemed to indicate that the repair work corrected this condition rather than erosion caused by the flood. This explanation is noted on another backup calculation sheet to the DSR; this sheet is untagged and dated May 30, 1996.

First Appeal
PennDOT made their first appeal to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) by letter of August 28, 1996, requesting the amount of $4,214.25. Similar to the amount originally requested, this amount represents the actual costs for work performed at the site. The reason why it is much lower (by $2,797.15) than the original requested amount is because of a change in the method for computing the three aforementioned pay items. Where originally the computation was based on the number of sites, they were now based on a percentage of construction costs. The percentage rate was computed by dividing the actual construction costs incurred at this site (less the three subject items) by the total contract amount (less the three items).

The first appeal was denied by FEMA because a condition of preexisting scour at the near bridge abutment had been noted on the Bridge Inspection Report. Since PennDOT had not repaired this preexisting scoured area prior to the flood, FEMA determined that the repair work corrected this condition rather than erosion caused by the flood.

Second Appeal
PennDOT made their second appeal to PEMA by letter of April 25, 1996, revising their requested amount to $4,722.92 for the work performed at this site. This amount is an increase of $508.67 from the amount requested in their first appeal. This increase is a result of: 1) an adjustment in the total cost ($118.70 increase) calculated for three of the five contract items, and 2) to the addition of costs requested for Engineering and Design services in the amount of $389.97. The former is not explained in their documentation. The latter was computed by taking nine percent of the contract costs for the work performed at this site; this percentage is taken from the FEMA "Curve A" for these services.

In their appeal narrative, the PennDOT states that they are ".not repairing the advanced scour along the near abutment." and that they ".are only repairing the eroded embankment which was caused by the flood." They note that the Bridge Inspection Report states that there was no existing erosion on the embankment, and that stone had existed at the near abutment. PennDOT states that "The flood waters washed away this protection and caused the damage."

DISCUSSION
The question is whether the repairs were made to the preexisting scoured area at the bridge abutment, or to the embankment area eroded by the flood. Two entries made in the PennDOT Bridge Inspection Report dated January 5, 1996, provide the basis for the argument that the eroded areas were caused by the flood. These two entries are as follows:

1. Under the heading "E20 SUBSTRUCTURE," and subheading "- Scour," the entry states "ADVANCED AT NEAR ABUT. & PIER."
   
2. Under the heading "E21 CHANNEL/CHANNEL PROTECTION", and subheading "Scour," a similar entry states "ADVANCED AT NEAR ABUT."

Bridge scour typically takes place at or below the water surface elevation where stream flows have "undermined" the concrete structure. Scour is often unseen from the surface, and must be checked by scuba divers or by using remote television cameras. In fact, the reason the FHWA mandates that states implement bridge inspection programs is a direct result of several bridge collapses, some of which were caused by scouring.

Two other entries made in the report provide evidence that the stream embankment was in good condition with no eroded areas, as follows:

1. Under the heading "E21 CHANNEL/CHANNEL PROTECTION," and subheading "Embank Erosion," the entry states "NONE."
   
2. Also under heading "E21" and subheading "Chan./Emb. Protection," the entry states "STONE PLACED AT NEAR ABUT & NEAR FACE OF PIER."

So in summary, the bridge inspection report confirms that erosionin the form of advanced bridge scourexisted at or near the water line, but that the embankment was in good condition, and not eroded. These were the conditions prior to the flood. The applicant at no time claimed to have repaired the bridge scour locations; the fact that they had not is irrelevant to their claim.

As noted in the preceding text, the DSR data sheet included a description of the damage repair as "8'L x 6'W x 3'Drepair embankment erosion." Furthermore, on a backup calculation sheet, tagged page 1 of 17 and undated, the entry states "Narrativeembankment in good condition (preexisting)repair with R6 rockerosion caused by flooding Jan. 19, 1996." In their second appeal narrative, the PennDOT states that they are ".not repairing the advanced scour along the near abutment." and that they ".are only repairing the eroded embankment which was caused by the flood."

CONCLUSION
The evidence presented on the DSR data sheet and backup calculation sheet indicate that the repairs were made to the embankment, and not where bridge scour typically would exist. The PennDOT has clearly stated the same in their second appeal. Therefore, the conclusion is that the repair work corrected erosion along the channel embankment that was caused by the flood. These repairs are eligible for reimbursement under Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 206.226, Restoration of damaged facilities. The appeal is approved. Our Regional Director will determine the amount of funding eligible.