Raymond Maintenance Shed

January 29, 2003


Ms. Donna Voss
Public Assistance Program
Emergency Management Division
State of Washington Military Department
MS: TA-20 Building 20
Camp Murray, WA 98430-5122

RE: Second Appeal – Pacific County, PAID 049-99049-00, Maintenance Shed,
1361-DR-WA, Project Worksheet (PW) 924

Dear Ms. Voss:

This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal transmitted by your letter dated July 19, 2002. Pacific County (Applicant) is requesting an increased scope of work and estimate of funding relative to settlement repairs at the Raymond Maintenance Shed. The amount of additional funding requested is $80,685.

As a result of the Nisqually Earthquake on February 28, 2001 (FEMA-1361), the Raymond Maintenance Shed, located in Raymond, WA, suffered settlement in the southwest corner of the building. On July 2, 2001, FEMA, the State of Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division (State) and the Applicant inspected the site. The southwest corner of the building was observed to have settled approximately two-inches, causing an apparent split in a beam at the top of the wall, loosening of nails in vertical wall members at their attachment to the bottom of the affected roof beam, and loosening of the plywood sheets on the south wall. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 924 for $2,321 to repair the observed damages. The approved scope of work included jacking and shimming of the southwest corner of the building, repairing the beam crack with epoxy injection, and re-nailing the loosened members.

In a letter dated September 10, 2001, as well as in first and second appeal correspondence, the Applicant indicated that the PW did not adequately address the disaster-damages. In particular, it stated that settlement of the footing would continue to occur if not corrected, that the pile cap and piling required reinforcing as necessary to carry building loads, and that the repair with epoxy injection was not adequate for the cracked beam. The Applicant estimated the repair costs to be $12,000 to shore the building, $15,000 to replace the glue lam and framing, and $50,000 to repair the pile cap and footing (total estimate $83,006, including sales tax).


FEMA and/or the State conducted several additional site inspections to further assess the condition of the building. In response to the Applicant’s first appeal, the Regional Director indicated that the damage to the facility was limited to the wall and glue laminated beam and that the eligible scope should address only those damages. Settlement of the pile foundation caused no loss of function or capacity of the building, and therefore does not constitute damage eligible for reimbursement by FEMA. Throughout this process, the State has also maintained that the building and foundation condition observed at the site, and the written documentation provided to date, do not support a revised scope of work or project costs higher than that provided. The State indicated that the building sustained only minor, nonstructural damage, and that the structural integrity of the building has not been compromised.


The Applicant’s second appeal again requests the increased scope items and adjustment of funding, but provided no additional documentation to support these assertions. Although the Applicant asserts that the pile foundations are continuing to settle, no documentation, such as building settlement surveys or geotechnical engineering reports, have been provided to support that additional movement has occurred since the earthquake or that the structural integrity or load-carrying capacity of the foundation system has been compromised due to this condition. This assertion is based solely on the opinion of the Applicant.


My staff conducted a conference call on November 18, 2002, with representatives of FEMA Region X, the State and the Applicant. During this call, FEMA requested additional information from the Applicant to support the appeal. The Applicant stated that it submitted all documentation with the appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal review is based on the information submitted with the appeal.


While it is not uncommon for foundations to settle in response to earthquake-induced ground movements, the strength-reduction effects from earthquakes are generally temporary in nature. Based on the information available at this time, which appears to be limited to visual observations, it is agreed that the reduction in soil strength during the earthquake may have resulted in downward movement of the piles supporting the facility. However, after 1½ years, the strength of the soils supporting the piles should be nearly the same as it was prior to the earthquake, such that pile reinforcement should not be necessary. Adequate information has not been provided to demonstrate that the pile foundation system is damaged, such that the requested scope of work to repair the foundation is not warranted.


Additionally, the Applicant is requesting that the glue-laminated beam and framing be replaced, asserting that the repair with epoxy injection is not adequate. This assertion is based on the opinion of the Applicant’s staff and that of area contractors. Again, no documentation, such as structural analyses or other engineering reports, has been provided to support that the structural integrity of this component is damaged beyond repair by the proposed method. Alternatively, based on the inspectors’ reports and the apparent acceptable performance of the structure after the earthquake, it cannot be concluded that replacement of the glue-laminated beam is necessary.

Based on the analysis described above, I have determined that the documentation provided by the Applicant does not support the request to increase the project scope of work or associated costs. Therefore, the Applicant’s appeal is denied.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter, as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
John R. D’Araujo, Jr.
Assistant Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

cc: John E. Pennington
Regional Director
FEMA Region X