Damage Surveys

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-4158
ApplicantCity and County of San Francisco
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-UDE6N-00
PW ID#77
Date Signed2016-12-22T00:00:00

Conclusion:  The damage survey of the electrical transmission lines, lattice towers, conductors and insulators performed by the Applicant’s contractor, as well as the cleaning of the lines and insulators are not eligible for PA funding.

Summary Paragraph

From August 17 to October 24, 2013, a wildland fire (Rim Fire) that began in the Stanislaus National Forest raged through Tuolumne County and burned 257,314 acres of land.  The Rim Fire threatened parts of the electrical power distribution system operated by Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP).  HHWP is a department of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.  The Rim Fire caused electrical arcing among two 230kV transmission lines (Lines 5 and 6, also referred to as LOP 47) causing them to disengage from the power source.  Before the transmission lines could be re-energized, HHWP followed certain state and industry safety precautions which included an assessment of the electrical system.  HHWP work crews visually inspected the affected transmission lines and communicated their observations to a contractor, who then conducted an assessment and issued a report to HHWP.  According to the contractor’s report, no fire damage was observed on the lattice towers or conductors, while the insulators appeared to be contaminated with ash from the Rim Fire.  An insulator was removed and sent off for further testing.  The result was that no heat damage was detected on the insulator.  The contractor’s report recommended washing/cleaning the insulators for long-term operating reliability.  PW 77 was generated to document the Applicant’s overall request for Public Assistance (PA) for surveys of its power distribution system, including Lines 5 and 6.  All of the work described in the PW was determined to be ineligible for PA funding and PW 77 was obligated for zero dollars.  The Applicant appealed the determination for Lines 5 and 6 only, arguing that the cleaning of the transmission lines and insulators was required by state and industry safety standards.  The Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal stating that per FEMA policy, damage surveys are not eligible for Public Assistance funding.  The RA further stated that there was no damage to the transmission towers or conductors and test of a representative insulator yielded no heat-related damage. On second appeal, the Applicant again argues that the cleaning of the insulators was required by state and industry safety standards.  Specifically, the cleaning to remove the ash was required to reduce the risk of arc-flash during the re-energization process, which in turn, reduced the risk to life, health and safety of the first responders fighting the fire in and around the power distribution lines.

Authorities and Second Appeals

  • Stafford Act §§ 403, 406.

  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.201(b).

  • PA Guide, at 55, 56, 85.

  • Florida Dept. of Transp., FEMA-3288-EM-FL, at 5.

  • Florida Dept. of Transp., FEMA-1561-DR-FL, at 2.

Headnotes

  • Pursuant to the PA Guide, at 55, the owner of a facility is responsible for determining the extent of damage.General surveys for damage are not eligible for PA funding.

    • The Applicant’s damage survey is ineligible for PA funding.

  • Pursuant to the PA Guide, at 56, when disaster-related damage is discovered during a survey or is evident from other observation, inspection of only the damaged section is eligible for PA funding. That limited cost may be included in the PW for the damages.

    • The contractor’s report, whether it is considered a damage survey or inspection report, did not identify any damage.

Appeal Letter

Mark S. Ghilarducci
Secretary
California Emergency Management Agency
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655

Re: Second Appeal – FEMA-4158-DR-CA, City and County of San Francisco, Project Worksheet 77 – Damage Surveys

Dear Mr. Ghilarducci:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated March 29, 2016, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $38,147.93 for damage survey costs and costs for cleaning ash deposits from insulators.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that, pursuant to FEMA policy, damage surveys are not eligible for funding under the Public Assistance (PA) Program.  Further, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the presence of the ash material created an immediate threat to life, public health or safety.  Nor has the Applicant demonstrated how the ash caused damage by altering or impairing the functionality of the electrical transmission lines or insulators.  As such, the costs to clean the insulators are also ineligible.

Accordingly, I am denying the appeal.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals.
 

Sincerely,

Christopher Logan
Director
Public Assistance Division

Enclosure                              

cc:  Robert J. Fenton, Jr.
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

Background

From August 17 to October 24, 2013, a wildland fire (Rim Fire) that began in the Stanislaus National Forest raged through Tuolumne County and burned more than 257,000 acres of land.[1]  The Rim Fire threatened parts of the electrical power distribution system operated by Hetch Hetchy Water and Power (HHWP) within Tuolumne County, California.  HHWP is a public utility owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which is a department of the City and County of San Francisco (Applicant).[2]  The Rim Fire caused electrical arcing among two 230kV transmission lines (Lines 5 and 6) causing them to disengage from the power source.  Before the transmission lines could be re-energized, HHWP followed certain state and industry safety precautions which included performing an assessment of the electrical system.  HHWP work crews visually inspected the affected transmission towers and lines and communicated their observations to a contractor, who then conducted a detailed damage survey and issued a report to HHWP.  According to the contractor’s report, no fire damage was observed on the lattice towers or conductors, while the tower insulators appeared to be contaminated with ash from the Rim Fire.  An insulator was removed and sent off for further testing.  The result of the testing was that no heat damage was detected on the insulator.  The contractor’s report recommended washing/cleaning the insulators for long-term operating reliability.

FEMA formulated PW 77 to document the Applicant’s overall request for Public Assistance (PA) for surveys of various portions of HHWP’s power distribution system.  In the Scope of Work for Lines 5 and 6, FEMA documented the visual inspection performed by HHWP work crews, as well as the results of the testing performed on the representative insulator from inside the burn perimeter.  FEMA determined there was no damage to the transmission lines and towers at Lines 5 and 6 as a result of the Rim Fire.  All of the work described in the PW was determined to be ineligible for PA funding and PW 77 was obligated for zero dollars.  On October 15, 2014, FEMA sent the Applicant notification of the eligibility determination. 

First Appeal

On December 12, 2014, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s ineligibility determination for Lines 5 and 6 only.[3]  The Applicant sought $248,465.00 in PA funding.[4]  On January 20, 2015, the Applicant amended its appeal, revising the amount to $115,195.57.[5]  The Applicant argued that the cleaning of the lines and insulators was required by state and industry safety standards.  Specifically, the Applicant asserted that the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)[6]  Reliability Standards mandated that HHWP have plans in place to restore system operations after a disruption.  Per the NERC Reliability Standards, HHWP had its own System Restoration Plan.  This plan called for HHWP to determine the status of the areas that may have become separated and the extent of any loss of electrical generation or load.[7]  In addition to the Reliability Standards, the Applicant also cited California’s electrical safety regulations as a basis for cleaning the electrical lines and insulators.  In a letter dated February 18, 2015, the Grantee forwarded the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA.  Through its letter of support, the Grantee described the appeal as requesting, “reimbursement of the cost to conduct a survey of the transmission towers, conduct a Megger test on a representative tower insulator to determine the insulator rating, and clean the first three transmission towers south of Holm Powerhouse as a result of ash deposits.”[8]

The Region IX Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal on December 24, 2015.[9]  The RA found that there was no damage to the transmission towers or conductors and the results of the Megger test indicated no heat-related damage to the representative insulator.  The RA stated the Applicant’s survey and ash removal costs are only eligible for reimbursement if: (1) the presence of ash posed an immediate threat to life, health and safety, making its removal eligible emergency work, or (2) if the ash was the equivalent of physical damage thereby making the cleaning of the insulators eligible permanent work.  The contractor’s report indicated that, “[f]or long-term operating reliability, it is recommended to wash/clean the affected insulators such that the risk of flashover is minimized.”[10]  Since the contractor’s report did not indicate any immediate threat that would be mitigated by the washing/cleaning of the insulators, the RA determined that doing so was akin to normal preventative maintenance.

The RA also noted that the costs of a damage survey are only eligible if damage is discovered during the survey.[11]  If damage is discovered during the survey, FEMA will reimburse an applicant only for the damaged portion of its facility.  The presence of ash on the tower insulators was not considered physical damage as there was no evidence of physical alteration to, or impairment of the function of, the tower, the insulators or electrical Lines 5 and 6.  As a result, the RA denied the appeal.

Second Appeal

On February 12, 2016, the Applicant filed a second appeal requesting $38,147.93 in costs for the damage survey and cleaning of the insulators.[12]  The Applicant maintains that the activities were required by industry reliability standards and federal and state regulations, and that they were protective of human life and the environment.  The Grantee recommended approval of the appeal and forwarded it to FEMA on March 29, 2016.

Discussion

Emergency Work

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) § 403 authorizes FEMA to provide PA funding for activities essential to meeting immediate threats to life and property, resulting from a major disaster.[13]  Such work is categorized as “emergency work,” which is defined as work which must be performed immediately to save lives and protect improved property and public health and safety, or to avert or lessen the threat of a major disaster.[14]

The record does not reflect an immediate threat to life, public health or safety posed by the presence of ash on the insulators.  While the contractor’s report states that washing/cleaning the insulators is recommended to minimize the risk of flashover, the purported threat is general in nature and the recommendation is couched in terms of maintaining “long-term operating reliability.”[15]  While, the Applicant’s assertion that such activity was required by industry standards and federal and state regulations may be true, it does not establish the existence of an immediate threat for the purposes of PA eligibility.  Accordingly, the Applicant’s work to survey and clean the insulators is ineligible as emergency work.

Permanent Work

Pursuant to Stafford Act § 406, PA funds may be available to a state or local government for the repair, restoration, reconstruction or replacement of a public facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster.[16]  Per FEMA policy, the owner of a facility is responsible for determining the extent of damage.[17]  Surveys for damage are not eligible for PA funding.[18]  Some examples of ineligible survey costs are: general surveys for eligible facilities; video inspection of sewer lines; bridge inspections to determine the possibility of damage; and pier inspections to determine the possibility of damage.[19]  However, when disaster-related damages are discovered, inspections performed by an engineer to evaluate the necessary “type and extent” of repairs are eligible.[20]

The Applicant’s employees performed a visual inspection of Lines 5 and 6.[21]  The Applicant has consistently referred to this activity as a “damage survey.”[22]  By definition, the activity for which the Applicant seeks funding is ineligible.[23]  According to the contractor’s report, no fire damage was observed on the lattice towers or conductors.[24]  Furthermore, testing and analysis of one of the insulators in question yielded no heat-related damage.[25]  There was, however, ash material on the upper surface of the insulators.[26]  The Applicant implies, and the Grantee asserts, that the presence of ash deposits on the insulators is physical damage. 

A review of Applicant’s submission and the administrative record yields no evidence that the electrical transmission lines, lattice towers, conductors or insulators were damaged as a result of the presence of ash material.  Nothing in the contractor’s report indicates any impairment to the use, function or capacity of the electrical transmission lines, lattice towers, conductors or insulators as a result of the ash deposits.  As the presence of ash on the insulators is not damage, PA funding is unavailable regardless of whether FEMA considers the contractor’s report to be a damage survey or an inspection report.  Likewise, the cost of cleaning the ash off the insulators is also ineligible.

Conclusion

The Applicant’s damage survey confirmed the presence of ash deposits on insulator surfaces but revealed no heat-related damage to the electrical lines, lattice tower or insulators.  The Applicant has not demonstrated that the presence of the ash material created an immediate threat to life, public health or safety.  Nor has the Applicant demonstrated how the ash altered or impaired the functionality of the electrical transmission lines or insulators.  Therefore, the damage survey and ash removal costs are not eligible for PA reimbursement.  The Applicant’s appeal is denied.

 

[1] State of California Sierra Nevada Conservancy, The Rim Fire - A Glimpse into the Future For California, http://www.sierranevada.ca.gov/our-region/rim-fire (last visited June 27, 2016) (The California Rim Fire was the third largest wildfire in state history and the largest wildfire on record in the Sierra Nevada mountain range.).

[2] San Francisco Water Power Sewer, About Us, Our Mission, http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=161, (last visited July 29, 2016) (The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is a department of the City and County of San Francisco that provides retail drinking water and wastewater services to San Francisco, wholesale water to three Bay Area counties, and green hydroelectric and solar power to San Francisco's municipal departments.).

[3] Letter from Deputy Controller, City and Cty. of S.F., to Assistant Dir. of Recovery, Cal. Governor’s Office of Emergency Servs., at 1 (Dec. 12, 2014) [hereinafter Applicant’s First Appeal].

[4] Id.

[5] Letter from Deputy Controller, City and Cty. of S.F., to Assistant Dir. of Recovery, Cal. Governor’s Office of Emergency Servs., at 1 (Jan. 20, 2015)

[6] North American Electric Reliability Corporation, http://www.nerc.com/Pages/default.aspx (last visited July 7, 2016) (The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability of the bulk power system in North America.).

[7] Applicant’s First Appeal, at 7.

[8] Letter from Governor’s Authorized Rep., Cal. Governor’s Office of Emergency Servs., to Acting Reg’l Adm’r, Region IX, FEMA, at 2 (Feb. 18, 2015).

[9] FEMA First Appeal Analysis, City and County Of San Francisco, FEMA-4158-DR-CA, at 4 (Dec. 24, 2015) (On March 26, 2015, the Region IX Acting Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal.  However, due to an administrative oversight, FEMA reopened the first appeal decision.) 

[10] Black & Veatch, 230 kV Transmission Lines & Towers Project Description (Nov. 25, 2013), at 3 [hereinafter Contractor’s Report].

[11] Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322, at 55 (June 2007) [hereinafter PA Guide].

[12] Letter from Deputy Controller, City and Cty. of S.F., to Pub. Assistance Officer, Cal. Governor’s Office of Emergency Servs., at 1 (Feb. 12, 2016) [hereinafter Second Appeal].

[13] The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 93-288 § 403, 42 U.S. § 5170b (2013).

[14] Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 C.F.R.) § 206.201(b) (2013) and PA Guide, at 66.

[15] Contractor’s Report. At 3.

[16] Stafford Act § 406.

[17] PA Guide, at 55, 85.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 55.

[20] Id. at 56.

[21] Contractor’s Report, at 1 (“A visual inspection of Lines 5 & 6 was made by HHWP lines crews during a 7-day period from August 23, 2013 to August 29, 2013.”).

[22] Second Appeal, at 8 (“All activities associated with PW 77 . . . have been completed to date, including the damage survey . . . .  The survey showed that the insulators were undamaged . . . Total costs for PW 77 . . . include damage survey costs . . . .”) (emphasis added).

[23] See FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Florida Department of Transportation, FEMA-3288-EM-FL, at 5 (Jun 30, 2015) (“[V]isually inspecting the bridges to determine whether disaster-related damage is present is explicitly excluded from eligible work under the PA program.”), and FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Florida Department of Transportation, FEMA-1561-DR-FL, at 2 (Mar. 23, 2009) (“. . . FEMA does not fund surveys or safety reviews to determine the possibility of damage to a facility.  The owner of a facility is responsible for determining the extent of damage.”).

[24] Contractor’s Report, at 1.

[25] Id. (“[M]egger test results performed on a representative insulator retrieved from inside the burn perimeter indicated that there was no insulator damage caused by heat.”) (emphasis added).

[26] Id.

Last updated