U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Https

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites..

Result of Declared Incident, Hazard Mitigation

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster4332
ApplicantBaptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-UTFZB-00
PW ID#GMP 11160
Date Signed2021-05-11T16:00:00

Summary Paragraph

From August 23 to September 15, 2017, rainfall from Hurricane Harvey impacted the roof of the Julie and Ben Rogers Cancer Institute and Auditorium (Facility), a building owned by Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas (Applicant).  A contractor hired by the Applicant assessed that rain from the disaster overwhelmed the roofing system, recommended replacing the roof, and prepared a hazard mitigation proposal (HMP).  FEMA created Grants Manager Project 11160 to document the restoration, but denied funding in a May 31, 2019 Determination Memorandum.  On June 17, 2019, the Applicant appealed, arguing that documented predisaster inspections demonstrated the roof was maintained and in good condition prior to the disaster.  The FEMA Region VI Regional Administrator denied the appeal on January 3, 2020, finding that the available documentation did not support disaster-related damage to the Facility, and thus the Applicant’s HMP was also ineligible.  The Applicant submitted a second appeal dated February 20, 2020, reiterating its first appeal arguments and requesting $1,612,985.57 to replace the Facility roof, restore interior spaces, and implement hazard mitigation measures.

Authorities and Second Appeals

  • Stafford Act § 406.
  • 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.223(a)(1), 206.226(e).
  • PAPPG v3.1, at 19, 97, 99, 118.
  • El Paso Cty., FEMA-4229-DR-CO, at 8.
  • Republic Cty. Highway Dep’t, FEMA-4230-DR-KS, at 4.

Headnotes

  • To be eligible for Public Assistance (PA) funding, an item of work must be required as a direct result of the disaster.
    • Predisaster records demonstrate a program of inspections and maintenance, but do not demonstrate the condition of the roof at the time of the disaster.  Further, the record establishes a difference in the age of separate sections of the roof, and presents conflicting or incomplete assessments of the disaster’s impact.  Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated how the disaster caused the claimed damage to the Facility’s roof and interior spaces.
  • FEMA has the authority to provide PA funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures for facilities damaged by the incident.
    • The hazard mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant are not associated with disaster-related damages.  Further, FEMA is unable to determine whether or how the proposed mitigation measures would protect the Facility from future damage.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roof or restore interior spaces is required as a direct result of the disaster, rather than the result of predisaster conditions or deferred maintenance.  Such work is ineligible for PA funding.  Consequently, the Applicant’s hazard mitigation proposal is also ineligible.  Therefore, this appeal is denied.

 

Appeal Letter

W. Nim Kidd

Chief, Texas Division of Emergency Management

Vice Chancellor – The Texas A&M University System

1033 LaPosada Drive, Suite 370

Austin, Texas 78752

 

Re:  Second Appeal – Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas, PA ID: 000-UTFZB-00, FEMA-4332-DR-TX, Grants Manager Project (GMP) 11160 – Result of Declared Incident, Hazard Mitigation

 

Dear Chief Kidd:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated March 10, 2020, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding in the amount of $1,612,985.57 for restoration and hazard mitigation at the Julie and Ben Rogers Cancer Institute and Auditorium (Facility).  

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roof or restore interior spaces is required as a direct result of the disaster, rather than the result of predisaster conditions or deferred maintenance.  Such work is ineligible for Public Assistance funding.  Consequently, the Applicant’s hazard mitigation proposal is also ineligible.  Therefore, this appeal is denied. 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals.

 

                                                                     Sincerely,

                                                                         /S/

                                                                     Ana Montero

                                                                     Division Director

                                                                     Public Assistance Division

 

Enclosure

cc:  George A. Robinson  

Regional Administrator

FEMA Region VI

Appeal Analysis

Background

From August 23 to September 15, 2017, wind-driven rain from Hurricane Harvey impacted the roof of the Julie and Ben Rogers Cancer Institute and Auditorium (Facility) located in Beaumont, Texas.  The Facility is owned and maintained by Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit.  The Facility’s roof has a total surface area of 23,875 square feet (SF) and is divided into four sections; three sections cover the Cancer Center and the remaining section covers an attached auditorium.

The Applicant hired Zero/Six Consulting (Zero/Six) to inspect and assess various properties, including the Facility.  On March 5, 2018, Zero/Six published a report finding that rainfall from the disaster overwhelmed the Facility’s “building envelope systems … allowing for water infiltration beyond the building envelope, damaging both building systems and the building interior.”[1]  Zero/Six found that only the auditorium roof was permanently damaged, but that the Cancer Center roof could be “dried out if acted on quickly.”[2]  Zero/Six recommended: (1) completely replacing the auditorium roof; (2) adding one-way vents to the Cancer Center roof; (3) replacing metal roof flashings; and (4) remediating and repairing interior areas damaged by water infiltration.  It recommended hazard mitigation measures to add new sealants and coatings to walls, and resealing or replacing the Facility’s windows.  Zero/Six prepared scopes of work (SOWs) with estimated costs totaling $1,612,985.57.[3]

On March 13, 2018, FEMA conducted a site inspection of the Facility.  The Site Inspector (SI) noted that the roof dated to 2013, except for the section of the roof over the auditorium.[4]  The SI recorded that water from wind-driven rain accumulation had “over flooded” each section of the roof, penetrating the modified bitumen surface membrane and damaging subsurface materials (foam board insulation, cover boards, and concrete decking).[5]  Additionally, the SI found that water accumulation damaged metal edge flashing on the auditorium roof.  The SI recommended replacing the roof, but noted that it might be possible to vent some areas, to dry out portions of the roof that had not been compromised.  The SI noted that the auditorium roof appeared old, and recorded significant delamination in the area.[6]  FEMA created Grants Manager Project 11160 to document permanent work to restore the Facility.

The Applicant’s insurer[7] hired Envista Forensics (Envista) to inspect and assess various properties, including the Facility.  Envista issued a report of findings dated August 20, 2018.  In general, Envista found evidence of predisaster deterioration in roof assemblies, and reasoned that these conditions had allowed for water intrusion, accumulation, and retention.  Consequently, Envista determined that, for many of the Applicant’s properties, “where moisture is currently present in the affected roof assemblies, some of that moisture has been present since before [the disaster] and their respective contributions cannot be quantified.”[8]  Specific to the Facility, Envista disagreed with the Zero/Six recommendation that the auditorium roof required replacement.  Instead, Envista found that, with some exceptions, the subsurface was dry, though there was widespread deterioration “indicative of long-term weathering.”[9]

The Applicant’s insurer also hired In-Line Forensics, Inc. (In-Line) to estimate disaster-related repair costs for the Applicant’s properties.  On August 24, 2018, In-Line issued a report detailing the estimated costs of repair, based on Envista’s determinations.  In-Line noted Zero/Six’s recommendation to replace the auditorium roof and restore interior spaces at the Facility.  However, as Envista did not substantiate disaster-related damages to the auditorium roof, In-Line did not include any estimated costs for the Facility in its report.

On September 11, 2018, FEMA issued a critical infrastructure analysis comparing the Zero/Six, Envista, and In-Line assessments of the Applicant’s properties.[10]  Based on their “general age, condition, and pliability,” FEMA reasoned that the Applicant had “attempted to extend the roofs beyond the manufactures [sic] useful life.”[11]  Further, FEMA found that a comparison of the various assessments demonstrated that water infiltration and accumulation in roofing surfaces was due to pre-existing damage and deferred maintenance.

In a Determination Memorandum dated May 31, 2019, FEMA denied Public Assistance (PA) funding for the project.  FEMA determined that information presented in the Envista report and the critical infrastructure analysis demonstrated an issue with predisaster deterioration in the Facility’s roof.  Moreover, FEMA found that neither Zero/Six nor the FEMA SI accounted for the roof’s age, pre-existing damage, or the Applicant’s predisaster maintenance activities when assessing the cause of any damage.

 

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted a first appeal dated June 17, 2019, requesting FEMA approve PA funding totaling $1,612,985.57, in accordance with the SOWs and cost estimates prepared by Zero/Six.  The Applicant stated that it previously provided a predisaster Facility assessment (COPE report), prepared in July 2015 by American International Group, Inc. (AIG), which FEMA had not considered in the initial eligibility determination.  The Applicant asserted that the COPE report, the Zero/Six report, and its predisaster maintenance records demonstrate that the Facility’s roof was routinely maintained and in good condition, with no previous damage, prior to the disaster.  Additionally, it argued that both the predisaster COPE report and the post-disaster Envista report were prepared by or for AIG; therefore, conflicting assessments between the two reports demonstrate that Envista’s findings were “without basis and are invalid.”[12]

Finally, the Applicant stated that FEMA’s SI and Zero/Six agreed that damages were caused by the disaster.  It noted Zero/Six’s assessment that the disaster produced an unprecedented amount of rainfall, which overwhelmed the roof and allowed water to infiltrate the Facility.  It stated that the Facility’s roof held standing water for 96 hours during the disaster, and pointed to post-disaster photographs taken by Zero/Six[13] showing water under the surface membrane.  The Applicant quoted a roofing industry article attached to the Zero/Six report,[14] and argued that if the roof had been subject to ongoing water infiltration prior to the disaster, the roof “would have had a history of leaks and the texture of beach sand.”[15]  In a transmittal letter dated June 19, 2019, the Texas Division of Emergency Management (Grantee) expressed support for the first appeal.

At the Applicant’s request, FEMA conducted an additional inspection of the Facility on October 8, 2019.  FEMA found that there was “no visible evidence of wind damage to the roof from the event,” and determined that the “roof condition showed evidence of ponding historically and age.”[16]  FEMA concurred with the Envista report and critical infrastructure analysis, finding that work to replace the roof was not necessary as a result of the disaster.  Additionally, FEMA examined the drainage systems present in each roof section, comparing them to industry requirements and hourly rainfall data recorded in the local area.  The data showed two separate hour-long periods wherein rainfall from the disaster exceeded industry requirements for drainage.  FEMA found that the existing drainage capacity of the roof was sufficient to meet industry requirements for all but these two periods.  FEMA concluded that “[w]ith only a few hours during the [six] day event exceeding the [five] year rainfall intensity[,] the roof system would have not necessarily been overwhelmed by the event.”[17]

On January 3, 2020, the FEMA Region VI Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding that the available documentation did not support disaster-related damage to the Facility.  FEMA determined that nothing in the Zero/Six report or other available information established any “visible damage … such as tears, detachment, or deformation” caused by the disaster.[18]  Further, the COPE report categorized the roof’s covering as “adequate” two years prior to the incident period, but did not address subsurface conditions.[19]  In contrast to the Zero/Six report, FEMA found that the Envista report, critical infrastructure analysis, and FEMA site inspection reports “provide specific reasons why roof replacement is unwarranted, and the limited damage cannot be associated with this disaster.”[20]  Finally, FEMA found that in the absence of eligible disaster-related damage, any funding the Applicant requested for mitigation measures was ineligible.

 

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted a second appeal via letter dated February 20, 2020, again requesting FEMA provide PA funding totaling $1,612,985.57.  The Applicant reiterates its first appeal arguments regarding the roof’s predisaster condition, supported by the COPE report and its predisaster maintenance records.  The Applicant asserts that in denying the first appeal, FEMA is establishing a standard for documentary evidence of predisaster conditions that is impossible to meet.  Specifically, it questions any requirement to perform and document “frequent costly and invasive tests” that would show the roof’s subsurface conditions prior to a disaster event.[21]

Finally, the Applicant disputes the findings in the Envista and site inspection reports.  It asserts that FEMA’s inspectors were not roofing experts, and that the inspectors only recorded the roof’s visible condition without performing testing or core sampling.  The Applicant states that Envista was unaware of the COPE report and had no knowledge of the roof’s predisaster condition.  Consequently, when informed of the COPE report during insurance settlement arbitration, the Applicant’s insurer changed its position on the presence of disaster-related damage.[22]  In a transmittal letter dated March 10, 2020, the Grantee expressed support for the second appeal.

 

Discussion

Result of Declared Incident

FEMA provides PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of facilities damaged or destroyed by disasters.[23]  To be eligible for PA funding, an item of work must be required as a direct result of the disaster.[24]  FEMA does not provide PA funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration, deferred maintenance, the applicant’s failure to take measures to protect a facility from further damage, or negligence.[25]  For buildings and building systems, distinguishing between damage caused by the incident and pre-existing damage may be difficult.[26]  Before making an eligibility determination, FEMA considers each of the following: the age of the building and building systems; evidence of regular maintenance or pre-existing issues; and the severity and impacts of the incident.[27]  It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate that damage was caused directly by the declared incident, and where pre-existing damage exists, to distinguish that damage from the disaster-related damage.[28]

 

     i. Cancer Center Roof[29]

In its report, Zero/Six indicated that the Facility’s roof dates to February 2013;[30] FEMA’s SI clarified that only the Cancer Center roof dated to 2013.  Therefore, the record establishes that the Cancer Center roof was approximately 4.5 years old at the time of the disaster.  Nothing in the record (e.g., a manufacturer’s warranty, professional engineer’s assessment, etc.) documents the expected service life of any section of the roof.  Nevertheless, considering the age of the Cancer Center roof at the time of the disaster, it is reasonable to conclude that these sections were well within their functional service life when the incident period began.

The Applicant provides the COPE report and maintenance and inspection records to establish the predisaster condition of the Cancer Center roof.  These records demonstrate a program of predisaster inspections and maintenance, which typically would include removing debris and cleaning roof-mounted drains.  The COPE report, based on a Facility inspection that occurred on July 14, 2015, provided an indication of predisaster conditions, stating that the Facility’s entire roof covering was “adequate,” without providing further details or explanation.[31]  The Applicant’s work log and inspection records, dated closer to the incident period, do not provide details as to the observed condition of roofing surfaces at the time of the inspections (e.g., the condition of the surface membrane over the various sections at the July 2017 inspection).

The Applicant uses Zero/Six’s assessment to support its claim that damages to the Cancer Center roof were the result of impacts from the declared incident.  Post-disaster photographs in the Zero/Six report show subsurface moisture at two separate locations in the Cancer Center roof.[32]  Additionally, photographs from FEMA’s first site inspection in March 2018 show water damage or staining in the surface membrane in several areas of the Cancer Center roof, including in close proximity to roof-mounted drains.[33]

However, in its report narrative, Zero/Six stated that “only the auditorium roof … has [been] permanently damaged” by the disaster.[34]  It recommended adding vents to the Cancer Center roof to allow subsurface materials to dry.  In the site inspection report, FEMA’s SI also indicated that additional venting could be used “to help dry out [the Cancer Center] roof that has not yet been compromised.”[35]  Both the Zero/Six and FEMA SI assessments indicate that the roof was still functional following the disaster, and could be retained.  This contradicts the SOW that was attached to the Zero/Six report, which reflected work and estimated costs to replace the Facility’s entire roofing system, and which the Applicant is claiming in the present appeal.

Eligible work must be required as a result of the declared event and the Applicant has the burden to demonstrate that the requested work is necessary.[36]  In light of the above contradiction, FEMA determines that the Applicant has not demonstrated disaster-related damage to the Cancer Center roof to such an extent that it required replacement.  Therefore, the work the Applicant is claiming on appeal is ineligible for PA funding. 

 

    ii. Auditorium Roof

In contrast to the Cancer Center roof, FEMA’s SI indicated that the auditorium roof was “old,”[37] though its precise age has not been established by the available documentation.  As above, Zero/Six assessed that the auditorium roof was permanently damaged by the disaster and recommended replacement.  However, Envista noted evidence of pre-existing deterioration in the roof’s surface, describing it as “widespread blistering of the membrane, discoloration, granule loss, and lap separations (from membrane shrinkage) indicative of long-term weathering.”[38]  Photographs from FEMA’s first site inspection show extensive deterioration in the auditorium roof, with numerous examples of delamination, cracking, and blistering in the surface membrane.[39] 

Additionally, Envista noted that predisaster moisture intrusion was generally associated with roofing assemblies that showed signs of frequent repair, had evidence of ponding, or were “recovers,” which Envista defined as “older roof coverings found within the assemblies.”[40]  In its report, Zero/Six recorded that the auditorium roof is a recover,[41] and this was confirmed by the Applicant in a request for information (RFI) attached to the Envista report.[42]  Finally, Envista determined that disaster-related wind damage was limited to the rooftops of the Beaumont Hospital and the Orange Medical Office Building (i.e., properties other than the Facility).  At the second site inspection, FEMA confirmed that there was no visible wind damage to the Facility’s roof, including the auditorium roof.

The Applicant relies on its predisaster maintenance and inspection records, including the COPE report, to dispute Envista’s findings.  However, as with the analysis of the Cancer Center roof above, these records do not indicate the predisaster condition of the auditorium roof.  Envista’s findings indicate a potentially significant predisaster issue with the function of the roof’s surface membrane.  Therefore, the available information does not enable FEMA to determine whether work to restore the auditorium roof was required as a result of disaster-caused damages, or the result of pre-existing deterioration.  Consequently, work to replace the auditorium roof is ineligible for PA funding.

  iii. Interior Damage

Zero/Six found that approximately five percent of the Facility’s interior finishes were damaged by water infiltration during the disaster, and included work for interior remediation and repair in in its recommendations.  The recovery SOW attached to the Zero/Six report included items of work associated with interior repairs (i.e., repairs to drywall, ceiling tiles, and carpeting, among other items).  However, as above, the available information does not enable FEMA to determine whether work to restore the Facility’s roof was required as a result of the disaster or a pre-existing issue, and work to restore the Cancer Center and auditorium roofs is not eligible.  Consequently, items of work to repair interior damage that resulted from water infiltration through the roofing system is also ineligible for PA funding.

Zero/Six also found that both the walls and windows of the Facility were a source of water infiltration into the interior spaces.  However, it noted specifically that neither the walls nor the windows had been damaged by the disaster.[43]  In the RFI attached to the Envista report, the Applicant indicated that “uncontrolled” rainwater from the disaster caused damage to the interior when “[t]he wall system was not able to manage the amount of water that migrated beyond the face of the masonry walls.”[44]  However, the Applicant did not explain how this “migration” occurred.  The Applicant has not demonstrated how water infiltration through the walls or windows occurred in the absence of disaster-caused damage to those features.  Therefore, the claim for permanent work to restore any interior damages from water infiltration through the walls and windows is likewise ineligible for PA funding.

 

Hazard Mitigation

FEMA has the authority to provide PA funding for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures for facilities damaged by the incident.[45]  Generally, eligible mitigation measures are those the applicant performs on the damaged portion(s) of the facility.[46]  If the applicant proposes mitigation measures that are distinct and separate from the damaged portion(s) of the facility, FEMA evaluates the proposal and determines eligibility on a case-by-case basis considering how the mitigation measure protects the damaged portion(s) of the facility and whether the mitigation measure is reasonable based on the extent of the damage.[47]

Zero/Six recommended adding new sealants and coatings to the Facility’s walls and re-sealing or replacing windows.  It developed an itemized SOW based on these recommendations, including work to completely replace the Facility’s windows.  However, as above, Zero/Six found that while both the walls and windows of the Facility were a source of water infiltration into the interior spaces, the infiltration was not caused by disaster-related damages to the walls or the windows.  Therefore, the Applicant’s hazard mitigation proposal is not associated with disaster-related damages.  Given this, and in light of the analysis in the preceding section, FEMA is unable to determine whether or how the proposed mitigation measures would protect the Facility’s interior from future damage.  FEMA therefore finds that the Applicant’s hazard mitigation request is ineligible for PA funding.

 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roof or restore interior spaces is required as a direct result of the disaster, rather than the result of predisaster conditions or deferred maintenance.  Such work is ineligible for PA funding.  Consequently, the Applicant’s hazard mitigation proposal is also ineligible.  Therefore, this appeal is denied.

 

[1] Zero/Six Consulting, Post-Disaster Facility Evaluation of Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas, Beaumont, Orange, and Silsbee Campuses, at 29 (Mar. 5, 2018) [hereinafter Zero/Six Report (All Campuses)].

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 29, 120-21, 148.  Zero/Six estimated $1,170,847.19 for recovery costs and $442,138.38 for hazard mitigation costs, and developed an itemized scope of work (SOW) for each.  The SOW for recovery reflected work and materials to replace the entire 23,875 SF roofing system.  Thus, though Zero/Six recommended repairing the existing Cancer Center roof in the report narrative, the SOW reflected work and estimated costs to replace the entire Facility roof (i.e., both the auditorium and Cancer Center roofs).

[4] FEMA Region VI, Site Inspection Report, Damage #21961, Julie and Ben Rogers Cancer Institute, at 1 (Mar. 13, 2018) [hereinafter Site Inspection Report] (“[r]oof age 2013 all but auditorium [sic]”).

[5] FEMA Region VI, Damage #21961, Julie and Ben Rogers Cancer Institute, Damage Description and Dimensions (DDD) (Mar. 13, 2018) [hereinafter Site Inspection DDD].

[6] Site Inspection Report, at 3, 11.

[7] The Applicant’s insurer, American Home Assurance Company, Inc. is a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (AIG); see Am. Home Assurance Co., Commercial Property Policy Declarations, Community Hospital Corp., at 1 (Nov. 15, 2016).

[8] Envista Forensics, Report of Findings, Community Hospital Corporation, Baptist Hospital [sic] of Southeast Texas, at 5 (Aug. 20, 2018) [hereinafter Envista Report].

[9] Id. at 8-9.

[10] In its analysis, FEMA refers generally to the various properties owned by the Applicant, but does not specifically reference the Facility; see FEMA Region VI, Critical Infrastructure – Comparative Analysis, Baptist Hospital (BHSET), at 3 (Sept. 11, 2018).

[11] Id.

[12] Letter from Chief Exec. Officer, Baptist Hosps. of Se. Tex., to Infrastructure Branch Dir., FEMA Region VI, at 2 (June 17, 2019) [hereinafter Applicant First Appeal].

[13] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 32.

[14] Id. at 202.  The Applicant quoted a passage from the article that “[l]ong-term exposure to entrapped water will reduce [lightweight insulating concrete] to beach sand.”

[15] Applicant First Appeal, at 3.

[16] FEMA Region VI, Project 11160 Business Office Site Inspection Summary, at 1 (Oct. 8, 2019).

[17] Id. at 3.

[18] FEMA First Appeal Analysis, Baptist Hosps. of Se. Tex. (GMP 11160), FEMA-4332-DR-TX, at 4.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 5.

[21] Letter from Chief Exec. Officer, Baptist Hosps. of Se. Tex., to FEMA Headquarters, at 1 (Feb. 20, 2020).

[22] Id. at 2 (claiming “the insurance company changed their earlier stance that relied heavily on the Envista report to the statement in the settlement document that ‘WHEREAS, it is [the insurer’s] position that there is no covered property damage resulting from [the disaster] that exceeds [the] applicable deductible’”); see also Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc., Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, at 1 (Mar. 27, 2019).

[23] Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance (Stafford) Act § 406, 42 U.S.C. § 5172 (2012).

[24] Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations § 206.223(a)(1) (2016); Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, FP 104-009-2, at 19 (Apr. 1, 2018) [hereinafter PAPPG].

[25] PAPPG, at 19-20.

[26] Id. at 118.

[27] Id.

[28] Id. at 19; FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, El Paso Cty., FEMA-4229-DR-CO, at 8 (Apr. 4, 2019).

[29] Information in Envista’s report indicates that it examined the Facility’s entire roofing system (i.e., both the Cancer Center and auditorium roofs); see Envista Report, at Attachment B.  However, Envista did not provide a specific assessment of the Cancer Center roof in the report narrative.  Therefore, FEMA is unable to apply Envista’s general findings regarding the condition of roofing assemblies across all of the Applicant’s properties to a specific analysis of the Cancer Center roof.  Likewise, because FEMA based its findings in the critical infrastructure analysis on Envista’s report, those findings are not relevant to an analysis of the Cancer Center roof.

[30] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 29.

[31] AIG, VHA Southwest Community Health Commercial Property COPE Report, at 13 (July 14, 2015).  AIG also noted that “[a] complete roof maintenance … and replacement program is established.”

[32] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 32.

[33] FEMA Region VI, Site Inspection Photo Page, Baptist Hosp. of Southeast Tex., Work Order 14084, at 1-7 (Mar. 13, 2018) [hereinafter Site Inspection Photographs].

[34] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 29.

[35] Site Inspection Report, at 2.

[36] 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1); FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, Republic Cty. Highway Dep’t, FEMA-4230-DR-KS, at 4 (July 26, 2017).

[37] Site Inspection Report, at 3.

[38] Envista Report, at 9.

[39] Site Inspection Photographs, at 7-10.

[40] Envista Report, at 7.

[41] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 30 (recording the auditorium roof’s composition as “[t]wo ply modified bitumen recover system (with mineral surfaced cap sheet) mopped to rigid insulation (perlite board) mopped to previous (spudded) asphalt system attached to lightweight concrete”).

[42] Envista Report, at Attachment F (recording the Applicant’s response to the RFI, in part, as “[t]he Auditorium … is a recover over one layer of perlite board”).

[43] Zero/Six Report (All Campuses), at 29 (noting “walls were not damaged by [the disaster], although they were a source of water infiltration,” and “[a]luminum windows were not damaged by [the disaster], although they were a source of water infiltration”).

[44] Envista Report, at Attachment F.

[45] Stafford Act § 406(e); 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(e); PAPPG, at 97.

[46] PAPPG, at 99.

[47] Id.

Last updated May 25, 2021