Home News Feeds National Situation Updates
Newsfeeds
FEMA.gov


  • Operation of Permanently Mounted Generators
    Appeal Type: 
    2nd
    Report Type: 
    PW
    Appeal Categories: 
    Applicant Name: 
    City of Athens
    Disaster Number: 
    4077-DR-OH
    DSR: 
    1033
    Date Signed: 
    Thursday, September 4, 2014
    PA ID: 
    009-02736-00
    Summary/Brief: 

    Conclusion:  The City of Athens’ permanently mounted generator costs are eligible; however, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible work.

    Summary Paragraph

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The City of Athens (Applicant) utilized two temporary and five permanently mounted generators during the event to support emergency protective measures at the Law Administration Building and four pump stations.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1033 for $33,212.88 to fund usage of the temporary generators, force account labor costs, and fuel for the permanently mounted generators.  FEMA did not reimburse the usage of the five permanently mounted generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $6,542.01 requesting that FEMA use equipment rates for the permanently mounted generators to determine eligible funding, because its insurer does not provide coverage for maintenance or depreciation of permanently mounted generators.  The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, explaining that the ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.  The Applicant reiterates its position in its second appeal.

    Authorities and Previous Appeals Discussed

    • Stafford Act §403,  42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3)
    • 44 C.F.R. § 206.226
    • Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 (June 2007), pages 54-55, 85
    • Public Assistance Digest, FEMA 321 (Jan. 2008), page 135
    • FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (Jan. 17, 2014)

    Headnotes

    • 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3) and 44 CFR § 206.225(a)(3) provide that generally, those prudent actions taken by an Applicant to ensure the continuation of essential public services and protect lives and public health are eligible for assistance.
    • FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55 provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources is considered an increased operating expense and is not eligible.  The guidance does provide an exception for increased operating costs constituting “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”
      • Application of this guidance necessitates a distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.
      • FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates. 
      • FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.


     

    Letter: 

    September 4, 2014

    Nancy J. Dragani
    Executive Director
    Ohio Emergency Management Agency
    2855 West Dublin-Granville Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206

    Re: Second Appeal – City of Athens, PA ID 009-02736-00, Operation of Permanently Mounted Generators, FEMA-4077-DR-OH, Project Worksheet (PW) 1033

    Dear Ms. Dragani:

    This is in response to your letter dated July 3, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Athens (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $6,542.01 for reimbursement of the operation of permanently mounted generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s use of permanently mounted generators is eligible.  However, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible emergency work.  Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

    Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    Brad J. Kieserman
    Assistant Administrator
    Recovery Directorate

    Enclosure

    cc: Janet Odeshoo
          Acting Regional Administrator
          FEMA Region V

    Analysis: 

    Background

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage throughout Athens County, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The City of Athens (Applicant) utilized two temporary and five permanently mounted generators during the event to support emergency protective measures at the Law Administration Building and four pump stations.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1033 for $33,212.88 to fund the force account labor costs associated with emergency protective measures, fuel for the permanently mounted generators, and usage of the temporary generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  Because five of the generators were permanently mounted, FEMA did not reimburse the use of the those generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates, but rather for fuel costs only ($1,650.00). 

    First Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $6,542.01 in a letter dated March 25, 2013, asserting that reimbursement for the permanently mounted generator usage should be based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates because its insurer does not provide coverage for maintenance or depreciation of permanently mounted generators.  The FEMA Region V Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated May 7, 2013, explaining that the depreciation and ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.

    Second Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a second appeal for $6,542.01 in a letter dated June 6, 2013, reiterating its request for FEMA to apply equipment rates in reimbursing the permanently mounted generator usage.  The Applicant’s second appeal letter states that the Applicant’s insurance covers the generators but contains a clause that excludes maintenance and depreciation.  The Grantee supports the Applicant’s second appeal, and its transmittal letter also cites a second appeal under FEMA-3288-EM-FL, dated January 17, 2012, involving a Miami-Dade County, Florida, project for which FEMA funded permanently mounted generator costs using FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    Discussion

    FEMA policy specifically provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources, with a few exceptions, is considered an increased operating expense and is generally not eligible for Public Assistance.[1]  FEMA’s policy provides exceptions, however, for “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”[2]  A specific example of such an exception is the “increased utility costs of a permanently mounted generator at a hospital or police station.”[3]   The FEMA Public Assistance Guide also lists the use of “temporary generators for facilities that provide health and safety activities” as an example of an emergency protective measure that can be undertaken by a community before, during, and following a disaster.[4]

    Recent appeals and appeal decisions have highlighted confusion with regard to distinguishing between the eligible costs associated with the use of permanently mounted generators compared to temporary generators and the underlying rationale for such distinctions.[5]  Use of the terms “portable” and “fixed” as interchangeable with “temporary” and “permanently mounted” has created additional ambiguity by primarily focusing on the physical placement of the generator rather than the duration, intent and purpose of the placement.  

    As such, it is important to reinforce the distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.  FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates in large part because the purpose of the placement of those items at the facility is related to the disaster in question and temporary in nature.  FEMA equipment rates include such costs as operation of equipment, depreciation, overhead, maintenance, field repairs, fuel, lubricants, tires, Occupational Safety and Health Administration equipment, and other costs incidental to operation.  In contrast to temporary generators, permanently mounted generators, whether a fixture as described within OMB Circular A-87, mounted on a pad within a shed servicing a building, or affixed or otherwise bolted down to a slab adjacent to a building, typically have been placed in their locations for reasons that preceded the disaster and with an intent that they remain there afterward.  Hence, the fundamental purpose, nature, and duration of the placement of a permanent generator differ from a temporary generator that is brought in to provide temporary emergency power during the time of the disaster in question.  The purpose of permanently mounted generators is to provide backup power whenever necessary, and not only as a consequence of a disaster.  Recognizing such a purpose, it is reasonable to assume the associated overhead costs for permanently mounted generators is covered by the applicant’s operating budget and that the only out-of-pocket expense for operating them is the increased operating expense of fuel used.  Accordingly, FEMA will reimburse fuel costs for permanently mounted generators if they are used to perform eligible emergency work because those are the only increased costs incurred by the applicant as a direct result of the event.  This policy distinction applies to permanently mounted generators as a matter of principle, regardless of circumstances associated with an individual applicant’s insurance coverage, the placement of a permanently mounted generator in a leased facility, or whether maintenance costs for a permanently mounted generator are included in an applicant’s operating budget.

    With regard to the fundamental issue of this appeal, the basic facts are analogous to those in the January 2014 Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District second appeal decision.  The Trimble second appeal decision reinforced existing policy in finding that when permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work, but will not reimburse the usage based on equipment rates. 

    Conclusion

    FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.  In this case, FEMA has provided all of the eligible funding available for the permanently mounted generator usage in PW 1033.


    [1] See FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55.

    [2] Id.at 55.

    [3] Id.

    [4] Id. at 72.

    [5] See FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (January 17, 2014) (noting unclear direction provided by prior second appeal decisions as to eligible costs associated with permanently mounted generator usage).  The Trimble decision also found that the Miami-Dade second appeal decision, referenced by the Grantee, accurately reflected FEMA policy regarding reimbursement of permanently mounted generator usage but provided ambiguous direction to the Regional Administrator and consequently was misapplied.  

     



  • Operation of Permanently Mounted Generators
    Appeal Type: 
    2nd
    Report Type: 
    PW
    Appeal Categories: 
    Applicant Name: 
    Paulding County Emergency Management Agency
    Disaster Number: 
    4077-DR-OH
    DSR: 
    510
    Date Signed: 
    Thursday, September 4, 2014
    PA ID: 
    125-08399-00
    Summary/Brief: 

    Conclusion:  The Paulding County’s permanently mounted generator costs are eligible; however, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible work.

    Summary Paragraph

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Paulding County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two permanently mounted generators during the event to support emergency protective measures at its Emergency Operations Center and communications tower.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 510 for $3,803.32 to fund the fuel for the permanently mounted generators.  Because both of the generators were permanently mounted, FEMA did not reimburse the cost of operating those generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $2,125.00 requesting that FEMA use equipment rates for the permanently mounted generators to determine eligible funding, because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a rented facility.  The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, explaining that the ownership costs of permanently mounted generators viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.  The Applicant reiterates its position in its second appeal.

    Authorities and Previous Appeals Discussed

    • Stafford Act §403,  42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3)
    • 44 CFR § 206.226
    • Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 (June 2007), pages 54-55, 85
    • Public Assistance Digest, FEMA 321 (Jan. 2008), page 135
    • FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (Jan. 17, 2014)

    Headnotes

    • 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3) and 44 CFR § 206.225(a)(3) provide that generally, those prudent actions taken by an Applicant to ensure the continuation of essential public services and protect lives and public health are eligible for assistance.
    • FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55 provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources is considered an increased operating expense and is not eligible.  The guidance does provide an exception for increased operating costs constituting “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”
      • Application of this guidance necessitates a distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.
      • FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates. 
      • FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.


     

     


     

    Letter: 

    September 4, 2014

    Nancy J. Dragani
    Executive Director
    Ohio Emergency Management Agency
    2855 West Dublin-Granville Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206

    Re: Second Appeal – Paulding County Emergency Management Agency, PA ID 125-08399-00, Operation of Permanently Mounted Generators, FEMA-4077-DR-OH, Project Worksheet (PW) 510

    Dear Ms. Dragani:

    This is in response to your letter dated July 3, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Paulding County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $2,125.00 for reimbursement of the operation of permanently mounted generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s use of permanently mounted generators is eligible. However, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible emergency work.  Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

    Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    Brad J. Kieserman
    Assistant Administrator
    Recovery Directorate

    Enclosure

    cc: Janet Odeshoo
         Acting Regional Administrator
         FEMA Region V

    Analysis: 

    Background

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage throughout Paulding County, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Paulding County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two permanently mounted generators during the event to support emergency protective measures at its Emergency Operations Center and communications tower.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 510 for $3,803.32 to fund the fuel for the permanently mounted generators.  Because both of the generators were permanently mounted, FEMA did not reimburse the use of those generators based on FEMA’s equipment rates, but rather for fuel costs only. 

    First Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $2,125.00 in a letter dated March 11, 2013, asserting that reimbursement for the permanently mounted generator usage should be based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a rented facility.  The FEMA Region V Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated May 7, 2013, explaining that the depreciation and ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.

    Second Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a second appeal for $2,125.00 in a letter dated June 27, 2013, reiterating its request for FEMA to apply equipment rates in reimbursing the permanently mounted generator usage.  The Applicant’s second appeal letter states that the Applicant rents the facility that houses the generators and it has the responsibility of operating and maintaining the generators, not the facility owner. The Grantee supports the Applicant’s appeal and its transmittal letter also cites a second appeal under FEMA-3288-EM-FL, dated January 17, 2012, involving a Miami-Dade County, Florida, project for which FEMA funded permanently mounted generator costs using FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    Discussion

    FEMA policy specifically provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources, with a few exceptions, is considered an increased operating expense and is generally not eligible for Public Assistance.[1]  FEMA’s policy provides exceptions, however, for “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”[2]  A specific example of such an exception is the “increased utility costs of a permanently mounted generator at a hospital or police station.”[3]   The FEMA Public Assistance Guide also lists the use of “temporary generators for facilities that provide health and safety activities” as an example of an emergency protective measure that can be undertaken by a community before, during, and following a disaster.[4]

    Recent appeals and appeal decisions have highlighted confusion with regard to distinguishing between the eligible costs associated with the use of permanently mounted generators compared to temporary generators and the underlying rationale for such distinctions.[5]  Use of the terms “portable” and “fixed” as interchangeable with “temporary” and “permanently mounted” has created additional ambiguity by primarily focusing on the physical placement of the generator rather than the duration, intent and purpose of the placement.  

    As such, it is important to reinforce the distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.  FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates in large part because the purpose of the placement of those items at the facility is related to the disaster in question and temporary in nature.  FEMA equipment rates include such costs as operation of equipment, depreciation, overhead, maintenance, field repairs, fuel, lubricants, tires, Occupational Safety and Health Administration equipment, and other costs incidental to operation.  In contrast to temporary generators, permanently mounted generators, whether a fixture as described within OMB Circular A-87, mounted on a pad within a shed servicing a building, or affixed or otherwise bolted down to a slab adjacent to a building, typically have been placed in their locations for reasons that preceded the disaster and with an intent that they remain there afterward.  Hence, the fundamental purpose, nature, and duration of the placement of a permanent generator differ from a temporary generator that is brought in to provide temporary emergency power during the time of the disaster in question.  The purpose of permanently mounted generators is to provide backup power whenever necessary, and not only as a consequence of a disaster.  Recognizing such a purpose, it is reasonable to assume the associated overhead costs for permanently mounted generators is covered by the applicant’s operating budget and that the only out-of-pocket expense for operating them is the increased operating expense of fuel used.  Accordingly, FEMA will reimburse fuel costs for permanently mounted generators if they are used to perform eligible emergency work because those are the only increased costs incurred by the applicant as a direct result of the event.  This policy distinction applies to permanently mounted generators as a matter of principle, regardless of circumstances associated with an individual applicant’s insurance coverage, the placement of a permanently mounted generator in a leased facility, or whether maintenance costs for a permanently mounted generator are included in an applicant’s operating budget.

    With regard to the fundamental issue of this appeal, the basic facts are analogous to those in the January 2014 Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District second appeal decision.  The Trimble second appeal decision reinforced existing policy in finding that when permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work, but will not reimburse the usage based on equipment rates. 

    Conclusion

    FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.  In this case, FEMA has provided all of the eligible funding available for the permanently mounted generator usage in PW 510.


    [1] See FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55.

    [2] Id.at 55.

    [3] Id.

    [4] Id. at 72.

    [5] See FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (January 17, 2014) (noting unclear direction provided by prior second appeal decisions as to eligible costs associated with permanently mounted generator usage).  The Trimble decision also found that the Miami-Dade second appeal decision, referenced by the Grantee, accurately reflected FEMA policy regarding reimbursement of permanently mounted generator usage but provided ambiguous direction to the Regional Administrator and consequently was misapplied.  

     



  • Operation of Permanently Mounted Generator
    Appeal Type: 
    2nd
    Report Type: 
    PW
    Appeal Categories: 
    Applicant Name: 
    Putnam County Emergency Management Agency
    Disaster Number: 
    4077-DR-OH
    DSR: 
    872
    Date Signed: 
    Thursday, September 4, 2014
    PA ID: 
    137-U7CM9-00
    Summary/Brief: 

    Conclusion:  The Putnam County Emergency Management Agency’s permanently mounted generator costs are eligible; however, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible work.

    Summary Paragraph

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Putnam County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two temporary generators and one permanently mounted generator during the event to support emergency protective measures at a telephone company, St. Rita’s Medical Center, and the EMS/EMA station.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 872 for $7,631.00 to fund the temporary generators and fuel for the permanently mounted generator.  FEMA did not reimburse the usage of that generator based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $2,152.05 requesting that FEMA use equipment rates for the permanently mounted generators to determine eligible funding, because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a leased facility.  The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, explaining that the ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are built in to the cost of operating the facility.  The Applicant maintains that it leases the facility where the permanently mounted generator is located and it owns the generator.

    Authorities and Previous Appeals Discussed

    • Stafford Act §403,  42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3)
    • 44 C.F.R. § 206.226
    • Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 (June 2007), pages 54-55, 85
    • Public Assistance Digest, FEMA 321 (Jan. 2008), page 135
    • FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (Jan. 17, 2014)

    Headnotes

    • 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3) and 44 CFR § 206.225(a)(3) provide that generally, those prudent actions taken by an Applicant to ensure the continuation of essential public services and protect lives and public health are eligible for assistance.
    • FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55 provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources is considered an increased operating expense and is not eligible.  The guidance does provide an exception for increased operating costs constituting “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”
      • Application of this guidance necessitates a distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.
      • FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates. 
      • FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.


     

    Letter: 

    September 4, 2014

    Nancy J. Dragani
    Executive Director
    Ohio Emergency Management Agency
    2855 West Dublin-Granville Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206

    Re: Second Appeal – Putnam County Emergency Management Agency, PA ID 137-U7CM9-00, Operation of Permanently Mounted Generator, FEMA-4077-DR-OH, Project Worksheet (PW) 872

    Dear Ms. Dragani:

    This is in response to your letter dated July 3, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Putnam County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $2,152.05 for reimbursement of the operation of a permanently mounted generator based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s use of a permanently mounted generator is eligible.  However, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible emergency work.  Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

    Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    Brad J. Kieserman
    Assistant Administrator
    Recovery Directorate

    Enclosure

    cc: Janet Odeshoo
         Acting Regional Administrator
         FEMA Region V

    Analysis: 

    Background

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage throughout Putnam County causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Putnam County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two temporary generators and one permanently mounted generator during the event to support emergency protective measures at a telephone company, St. Rita’s Medical Center, and the EMS/EMA station.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 872 for $7,631.00 to fund the force account labor costs associated with emergency protective measures, fuel for the permanently mounted generator, and usage of the temporary generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  Because one of the generators was permanently mounted, FEMA did not reimburse the use of that generator based on FEMA’s equipment rates, but rather for fuel costs only. 

    First Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $2,152.05 in a letter dated March 5, 2013, asserting that reimbursement for the permanently mounted generator usage should be based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a leased facility.  The FEMA Region V Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated May 7, 2013, explaining that the depreciation and ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.

    Second Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a second appeal for $2,152.00 in a letter dated May 22, 2013, reiterating its request for FEMA to apply equipment rates in reimbursing the permanently mounted generator usage.  The Applicant’s second appeal letter states that the Applicant owns the generator in question but leases the facility in which the generator is housed.  The Grantee supports the Applicant’s second appeal, and the Grantee’s transmittal letter also cites a second appeal under FEMA-3288-EM-FL, dated January 17, 2012, involving a Miami-Dade County, Florida, project for which FEMA funded permanently mounted generator costs using FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    Discussion

    FEMA policy specifically provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources, with a few exceptions, is considered an increased operating expense and is generally not eligible for Public Assistance.[1]  FEMA’s policy provides exceptions, however, for “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”[2]  A specific example of such an exception is the “increased utility costs of a permanently mounted generator at a hospital or police station.”[3]   The FEMA Public Assistance Guide also lists the use of “temporary generators for facilities that provide health and safety activities” as an example of an emergency protective measure that can be undertaken by a community before, during, and following a disaster.[4]

    Recent appeals and appeal decisions have highlighted confusion with regard to distinguishing between the eligible costs associated with the use of permanently mounted generators compared to temporary generators and the underlying rationale for such distinctions.[5]  Use of the terms “portable” and “fixed” as interchangeable with “temporary” and “permanently mounted” has created additional ambiguity by primarily focusing on the physical placement of the generator rather than the duration, intent and purpose of the placement.  

    As such, it is important to reinforce the distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.  FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates in large part because the purpose of the placement of those items at the facility is related to the disaster in question and temporary in nature.  FEMA equipment rates include such costs as operation of equipment, depreciation, overhead, maintenance, field repairs, fuel, lubricants, tires, Occupational Safety and Health Administration equipment, and other costs incidental to operation.  In contrast to temporary generators, permanently mounted generators, whether a fixture as described within OMB Circular A-87, mounted on a pad within a shed servicing a building, or affixed or otherwise bolted down to a slab adjacent to a building, typically have been placed in their locations for reasons that preceded the disaster and with an intent that they remain there afterward.  Hence, the fundamental purpose, nature, and duration of the placement of a permanent generator differ from a temporary generator that is brought in to provide temporary emergency power during the time of the disaster in question.  The purpose of permanently mounted generators is to provide backup power whenever necessary, and not only as a consequence of a disaster.  Recognizing such a purpose, it is reasonable to assume the associated overhead costs for permanently mounted generators is covered by the applicant’s operating budget and that the only out-of-pocket expense for operating them is the increased operating expense of fuel used.  Accordingly, FEMA will reimburse fuel costs for permanently mounted generators if they are used to perform eligible emergency work because those are the only increased costs incurred by the applicant as a direct result of the event.  This policy distinction applies to permanently mounted generators as a matter of principle, regardless of circumstances associated with an individual applicant’s insurance coverage, the placement of a permanently mounted generator in a leased facility, or whether maintenance costs for a permanently mounted generator are included in an applicant’s operating budget.

    With regard to the fundamental issue of this appeal, the basic facts are analogous to those in the January 2014 Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District second appeal decision.  The Trimble second appeal decision reinforced existing policy in finding that when permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work, but will not reimburse the usage based on equipment rates. 

    Conclusion

    FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.  In this case, FEMA has provided all of the eligible funding available for the permanently mounted generator usage in PW 872.


    [1] See FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55.

    [2] Id.at 55.

    [3] Id.

    [4] Id. at 72.

    [5] See FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (January 17, 2014) (noting unclear direction provided by prior second appeal decisions as to eligible costs associated with permanently mounted generator usage).  The Trimble decision also found that the Miami-Dade second appeal decision, referenced by the Grantee, accurately reflected FEMA policy regarding reimbursement of permanently mounted generator usage but provided ambiguous direction to the Regional Administrator and consequently was misapplied.

     

     



  • Operation of Permanently Mounted Generator
    Appeal Type: 
    2nd
    Report Type: 
    PW
    Appeal Categories: 
    Applicant Name: 
    Van Wert County Emergency Management Agency
    Disaster Number: 
    4077-DR-OH
    DSR: 
    322
    Date Signed: 
    Thursday, September 4, 2014
    PA ID: 
    121-U1HKY-00
    Summary/Brief: 

    Conclusion:  Van Wert County’s permanently mounted generator costs are eligible; however, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible work.

    Summary Paragraph

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Van Wert County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two temporary generators and one permanently mounted generator during the event to support emergency protective measures at its Emergency Operations Center and a shelter at its middle school. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 322 for $11,883.60 to fund the temporary generators and fuel for the permanently mounted generator.  FEMA did not reimburse the usage of the permanently mounted generator based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $1,404.43 requesting that FEMA use equipment rates for the permanently mounted generators to determine eligible funding, because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a leased facility.  The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal, explaining that the ownership costs of permanently mounted generators are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.  The Applicant reiterates its position in its second appeal.

    Authorities and Previous Appeals Discussed

    • Stafford Act §403,  42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3)
    • 44 CFR § 206.226
    • Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 (June 2007), pages 54-55, 85
    • Public Assistance Digest, FEMA 321 (Jan. 2008), page 135
    • FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (Jan. 17, 2014)

    Headnotes

    • 42 U.S.C. § 5170b(3) and 44 CFR § 206.225(a)(3) provide that generally, those prudent actions taken by an Applicant to ensure the continuation of essential public services and protect lives and public health are eligible for assistance.
    • FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55 provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources is considered an increased operating expense and is not eligible.  The guidance does provide an exception for increased operating costs constituting “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”
      • Application of this guidance necessitates a distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.
      • FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates. 
      • FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.


     

    Letter: 

    September 4, 2014

    Nancy J. Dragani
    Executive Director
    Ohio Emergency Management Agency
    2855 West Dublin-Granville Road
    Columbus, Ohio 43235-2206

    Re: Second Appeal – Van Wert County Emergency Management Agency, PA ID 121-U1HKY-00, Operation of Permanently Mounted Generator, FEMA-4077-DR-OH, Project Worksheet (PW) 322

    Dear Ms. Dragani:

    This is in response to your letter dated July 3, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Van Wert County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $1,404.43 for reimbursement of the operation of a permanently mounted generator based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant’s use of a permanently mounted generator is eligible.  However, the eligible cost associated with that usage is limited to the cost of the fuel consumed during the performance of eligible emergency work.  Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

    Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206, Appeals.

    Sincerely,

    /s/

    Brad J. Kieserman
    Assistant Administrator
    Recovery Directorate

    Enclosure

    cc: Janet Odeshoo
         Acting Regional Administrator
         FEMA Region V

    Analysis: 

    Background

    During the incident period of June 29 through July 2, 2012, strong winds and severe storms produced extensive damage throughout Van Wert County, causing downed utility lines and widespread power outages for multiple days.  The Van Wert County Emergency Management Agency (Applicant) utilized two temporary generators and one permanently mounted generator during the event to support emergency protective measures at its Emergency Operations Center and a shelter at its middle school shelter.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 322 for $11,883.60 to fund usage of the temporary generators based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates and fuel for the permanently mounted generator.  Because one of the generators was permanently mounted, FEMA did not reimburse the use of that generator based on FEMA’s equipment rates, but rather for fuel costs only. 

    First Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a first appeal for $1,404.43 in a letter dated March 26, 2013, asserting that reimbursement for the permanently mounted generator usage should be based on FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates because its permanently mounted generator was housed in a leased facility.  The FEMA Region V Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a letter dated May 7, 2013, explaining that the depreciation and ownership costs of permanently mounted generators already are viewed as components of the cost of operating the facility.

    Second Appeal

    The Applicant submitted a second appeal for $1,404.43 in a letter dated June 13, 2013, reiterating its request for FEMA to apply equipment rates in reimbursing the permanently mounted generator usage.  The Applicant’s second appeal letter states that the Applicant leases the facility that houses the generator and in its first appeal letter, it maintains that it is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the generator.  The Applicant submitted its lease for the facility with its second appeal.  The Grantee supports the Applicant’s appeal, and its transmittal letter also cites a second appeal under FEMA-3288-EM-FL, dated January 17, 2012, involving a Miami-Dade County, Florida, project for which FEMA funded permanently mounted generator costs using FEMA’s schedule of equipment rates.

    Discussion

    FEMA policy specifically provides that the cost of obtaining power from alternate sources, with a few exceptions, is considered an increased operating expense and is generally not eligible for Public Assistance.[1]  FEMA’s policy provides exceptions, however, for “reasonable short-term additional costs to an applicant that are directly related to accomplishing specific emergency health and safety tasks as part of eligible emergency protective measures.”[2]  A specific example of such an exception is the “increased utility costs of a permanently mounted generator at a hospital or police station.”[3]   The FEMA Public Assistance Guide also lists the use of “temporary generators for facilities that provide health and safety activities” as an example of an emergency protective measure that can be undertaken by a community before, during, and following a disaster.[4]

    Recent appeals and appeal decisions have highlighted confusion with regard to distinguishing between the eligible costs associated with the use of permanently mounted generators compared to temporary generators and the underlying rationale for such distinctions.[5]  Use of the terms “portable” and “fixed” as interchangeable with “temporary” and “permanently mounted” has created additional ambiguity by primarily focusing on the physical placement of the generator rather than the duration, intent and purpose of the placement. 

    As such, it is important to reinforce the distinction between temporary and permanently mounted generators.  FEMA reimburses the use of temporary generators based on FEMA equipment rates or similar set rates in large part because the purpose of the placement of those items at the facility is related to the disaster in question and temporary in nature.  FEMA equipment rates include such costs as operation of equipment, depreciation, overhead, maintenance, field repairs, fuel, lubricants, tires, Occupational Safety and Health Administration equipment, and other costs incidental to operation.  In contrast to temporary generators, permanently mounted generators, whether a fixture as described within OMB Circular A-87, mounted on a pad within a shed servicing a building, or affixed or otherwise bolted down to a slab adjacent to a building, typically have been placed in their locations for reasons that preceded the disaster and with an intent that they remain there afterward.  Hence, the fundamental purpose, nature, and duration of the placement of a permanent generator differ from a temporary generator that is brought in to provide temporary emergency power during the time of the disaster in question.  The purpose of permanently mounted generators is to provide backup power whenever necessary, and not only as a consequence of a disaster.  Recognizing such a purpose, it is reasonable to assume the associated overhead costs for permanently mounted generators is covered by the applicant’s operating budget and that the only out-of-pocket expense for operating them is the increased operating expense of fuel used.  Accordingly, FEMA will reimburse fuel costs for permanently mounted generators if they are used to perform eligible emergency work because those are the only increased costs incurred by the applicant as a direct result of the event.  This policy distinction applies to permanently mounted generators as a matter of principle, regardless of circumstances associated with an individual applicant’s insurance coverage, the placement of a permanently mounted generator in a leased facility, or whether maintenance costs for a permanently mounted generator are included in an applicant’s operating budget.

    With regard to the fundamental issue of this appeal, the basic facts are analogous to those in the January 2014 Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District second appeal decision.  The Trimble second appeal decision reinforced existing policy in finding that when permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work, but will not reimburse the usage based on equipment rates.

    Conclusion

    FEMA does not reimburse the use of permanently mounted generators based on equipment rates.  However, if permanently mounted generators are used in the performance of eligible emergency work, FEMA will reimburse the fuel consumed during the performance of that work.  In this case, FEMA has provided all of the eligible funding available for the permanently mounted generator usage in PW 322.


    [1] See FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide (June 2007), at 54-55.

    [2] Id.at 55.

    [3] Id.

    [4] Id. at 72.

    [5] See FEMA-DR-4077-OH, Trimble Township Wastewater Treatment District (January 17, 2014) (noting unclear direction provided by prior second appeal decisions as to eligible costs associated with permanently mounted generator usage).  The Trimble decision also found that the Miami-Dade second appeal decision, referenced by the Grantee, accurately reflected FEMA policy regarding reimbursement of permanently mounted generator usage but provided ambiguous direction to the Regional Administrator and consequently was misapplied.

     



  • Pipe Insulation Replacement
    Appeal Type: 
    2nd
    Report Type: 
    PW
    Appeal Categories: 
    Applicant Name: 
    Nashville-Davidson County
    Disaster Number: 
    1909-DR-TN
    DSR: 
    5522
    Date Signed: 
    Thursday, September 4, 2014
    PA ID: 
    037-52004-00
    Summary/Brief: 

    Conclusion:  The Applicant provided sufficient documentation to support the need for replacement of pipe insulation due to mold contamination.

    Summary Paragraph

    During the incident period of April 30 to May 18, 2010, severe storms and flooding caused the Cumberland River to overflow, submerging the Applicant’s K. R. Water Treatment Plant.  The Plant’s Filter/Chemical Building was inundated and its below-grade rooms flooded.  FEMA prepared PW 5522 in the amount of $3,128,178.01 for repairs to the building.  FEMA initially determined that the costs of the replacement of the pipe insulation due to mold contamination were ineligible because either the repairs were needed due to deferred maintenance or the contamination could not be verified.  The Applicant submitted a first appeal in the amount of $3,047,519.38 for several items, including $141,577.00 for the replacement of the pipe insulation.  The Regional Administrator (RA) found that there was limited contamination and not enough to merit full pipe insulation replacement; that the Applicant’s technical memorandum did not specify the precise facility location or dimensions of the tested pipes; and their unit linear costs.  Finally, the RA stated that the Applicant did not refute the original determination of deferred maintenance.  On second appeal, the Applicant argued that the damage was disaster-related, that it was necessary to replace the pipe insulation, and claimed that maintenance was not deferred.  The Applicant provided a survey report supporting the claim of adequate maintenance. 

    Authorities and Second Appeals

    • 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1)
    • Recovery Division Fact Sheet 9580.100, Mold Remediation at 4 (Nov. 7, 2006)
    • PA Guide, at 32
    • City of Port Arthur, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, at 3.

    Headnotes

    • 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1) provides that to be eligible for reimbursement, an item of work must “[b]e required as the result of the emergency or major disaster event.”
      • The pipe insulation was in an area that was completely submerged with floodwaters resulting from the disaster.
    • Recovery Division Fact Sheet 9580.100, Mold Remediation provides that “It is the responsibility of the applicant to show evidence of mold contamination or damage during the inspection.”
      • The Applicant conducted testing; 45 percent of the samples contained mold at that time. 
    • The PA Guide at 32 states that for “mold remediation to be eligible, the mold must not be a result of poor facility maintenance or failure to take protective measures in a reasonable time after the event.”
    • The Applicant took prompt action to drain and dry the plant immediately following the flood waters receding.
      • The Applicant provided a 2009 survey report to demonstrate proper maintenance.
    • City of Port Arthur, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, at 3, states that under FEMA’s mold remediation policy, “soft surfaces such as ceiling tiles, cellulose and fiberglass insulation, and wallboards should be replaced after being contaminated with mold.”
      • The Applicant’s paper-backed pipe insulation should be considered a soft surface.


     

     

    Letter: 

    September 4, 2014

    David Purkey
    Interim Director
    Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
    3041 Sidco Drive, P.O. Box 41502
    Nashville, TN 37204-1502

    Re:  Second Appeal – Nashville-Davidson County, PA ID 037-52004-00, FEMA-1909-DR-TN, Project Worksheet (PW) 5522 – Pipe Insulation Replacement – Mold Contamination

    Dear Mr. Purkey:

    This is in response to your letter dated February 20, 2014, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Nashville-Davidson County (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $141,577.00 for the replacement of mold contaminated pipe insulation.

    As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant has demonstrated that the damage to the pipe insulation was caused by the flooding, that there was adequate maintenance, and that the pipe insulation replacement was necessary.  Accordingly, I am granting the appeal.  By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Acting Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

    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/

    William W. Roche
    Director
    Public Assistance Division                                         

    Enclosure

    cc: Andrew Velasquez, III
         Regional Administrator
         FEMA Region IV

    Analysis: 

    Background

    During the incident period of April 30, 2010, to May 18, 2010, severe storms and flooding caused the Cumberland River to overflow.  The Nashville-Davidson County’s (Applicant) K.R. Harrington Water Treatment Plant was submerged.  The Filter/Chemical Building System of the water treatment plant was inundated and the below-grade rooms flooded.  The Applicant’s equipment, which had pipes with paper-backed piping insulation, was submerged.  The Applicant contracted to pump out, clean, and dry the facility immediately after the floodwaters receded.  On October 29, 2010, the Applicant had a bacteria and mold assessment conducted, which confirmed the presence of mold.  FEMA obligated Project Worksheet (PW) 5522 to address restoration of the Filter Building System for $3,128,178.01 on March 13, 2011.  The cost of the pipe insulation replacement was not obligated because the Applicant did not verify the contamination at the time and the damage was thought to be the result of deferred maintenance.

    First Appeal

    In a letter submitted June 1, 2011, the Applicant appealed a total of $3,047,519.38 in denied funding for direct administrative costs, resident engineering, mold on pipe insulation, metal door replacement, repairs to damaged flumes, repairs to damaged electrical wiring and cable, replacement of lime feed and fluoride feed equipment, replacement of a distributive control unit, replacement of butterfly valves in filter building clearwells, rebuilding pumps, and replacement of air compressors.  On December 6, 2013, the FEMA Region IV Regional Administrator (RA) issued a partial approval for $1,853,767.32, subject to insurance review and anticipated insurance proceeds.  The rest of the costs, including the replacement of the pipe insulation, were denied because, while the work may have been eligible, the documentation provided was not sufficient to prove that the damages were disaster-related. 

    In FEMA’s first appeal response, the RA stated that the technical memorandum and report provided by the Applicant showed only limited mold contamination, findings which did not merit complete replacement. The RA also stated that the reports did not identify the facility location or dimensions of the tested pipes, and did not provide a unit cost per linear foot for pipe insulation removal and replacement.  Finally, the Applicant did not refute FEMA’s finding that the insulation damage resulted from deferred maintenance.  Therefore, the RA found that the Applicant provided insufficient documentation to show that the degradation of pipe insulation resulted from the flooding.  However, the Applicant used the same technical memorandum in six other appeals with this issue, and relief was granted in all of them.[1]

    Second Appeal

    On February 12, 2014, the Applicant submitted a second appeal letter to the State of Tennessee (Grantee).  The Grantee transmitted the Applicant’s second appeal to FEMA Region IV in a letter dated February 20, 2014, supporting the appeal.  The Grantee argues that the documentation submitted with the second appeal should be sufficient to allow reimbursement for the pipe insulation.  The Applicant limited its second appeal to the removal of the pipe insulation for $9,577.00 and the replacement of the pipe insulation for $132,000.00, totaling $141,577.00.

    Discussion

    Need for Removal and Replacement of Pipe Insulation

    According to 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1), in order to be eligible, work must be required as the result of the disaster. The floodwaters reached two feet above grade on the outside building walls and completely submerged the interior, below-grade rooms for two to three days.[2]  On October 29, 2010, the Applicant had a bacteria and mold assessment conducted, which confirmed the presence of mold.  In a letter dated May 18, 2011, the Applicant’s consultant explained that their observation and assessment of the impacted facility led them to the conclusion that the insulation was damaged by a major water intrusion event and that all of insulation in the flood zone was impacted.  FEMA’s Fact Sheet on mold remediation incorporates guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency stating that fiberglass and cellulose insulation should be replaced following mold contamination.[3]  It does not reference a threshold for contamination remediation eligibility; rather it only instructs that water damaged fiberglass and cellulose installation should be discarded and replaced.   

    Dimensions, Locations, and Cost

    FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) Guide provides that in a PW scope of work, “work should be specified as an action with quantifiable (length, width, depth, capacity) and descriptive (brick, wood, asphalt, timber deck bridge) terms.”[4]  The RA found that the technical memorandum and report provided by the Applicant did not identify which pipes were tested, their location in the facility, or the pipe dimensions.  On second appeal, the Applicant provided the locations and dimensions of the pipes in question, which correlate to PW line items numbered 3, 4, 9-14, and 16-19 from the PW’s damage description and scope of work.[5]  While the Applicant did not provide a unit cost per linear foot for pipe insulation removal and replacement, FEMA calculated the cost per linear foot by adding the totals requested for removal and replacement and dividing by the total linear feet of pipe insulation.  The resulting cost per linear foot was reasonable and comparable to the cost allowed on first appeal for the same applicant on PWs 5533, 5585, 5596, 5591, 5595, and 5597. 

    Maintenance

    The PA Guide states that for mold remediation to be eligible, “the mold must not be the result of poor facility maintenance or failure to take protective measures in a reasonable time after the event.”[6]  That the Applicant acted appropriately by hiring a contractor to pump out, clean, and dry the facility as soon as the floodwaters receded is not in dispute.  However, on first appeal, the RA found that the Applicant did not refute FEMA’s initial finding that the insulation damage resulted from deferred maintenance. 

    In its second appeal submission, the Applicant states that the State of Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation conducts routine sanitary surveys under its Drinking Water Program to ensure that water treatment facilities are compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The State’s 2009 survey did not make note of or deduct from the survey for any indication of the presence of mold.  In response to a specific request from FEMA, the Applicant provided a copy of the survey conducted on February 11-13 and 17, 2009.  The survey provided some recommendations but stated that “all other operations of the water system were of a superior nature.”  None of the recommendations applied to maintenance of the pipe insulation.  Furthermore, the survey included specific categories of equipment and associated scoring regarding maintenance.  Specifically, line items “4L.  Maintenance of Equipment, Buildings and (1) Grounds 1200-5-1-.02, .17(3), (17); and (19)”; “6B.  Inspection and Maintenance of Reservoirs, Tanks and Clearwell 1200-5-1-.17(16), (17), (33) and (34)”; and “7B.  Maintenance of Pumping Equipment 1200-5- (1-3) 1-.17(13)” were marked as “OK”, indicative of good maintenance practices.  These survey results sufficiently demonstrate that the pipes were properly maintained prior to the incident and that the damage was caused by the disaster.

    Conclusion

    The Applicant has provided documentation which identifies where the pipes were located, pipe dimensions, and unit costs for the insulation replacement.  The Applicant has also provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the insulation damage was a result of the flood event.  Therefore, the replacement of the mold contaminated pipe insulation is eligible.  A version to PW 5522 will be written to reflect this eligibility, subject to insurance review and anticipated insurance proceeds. 


    [1] See first appeal responses for Nashville-Davidson County, PWs 5533 (Sept. 27, 2013); 5585 (Sept. 27, 2013); 5591 (Nov. 25, 2013); 5595 (Dec. 6, 2013); 5596 (Sept. 27, 2013); and 5597 (Nov. 25, 2013).

    [2] Project Worksheet 5522, Nashville-Davidson County, Version 0 (Sept. 15, 2010).

    [3] See Recovery Division Fact Sheet 9580.100, Mold Remediation at 4 (Nov. 7, 2006); see also FEMA Second Appeal Analysis, City of Port Arthur, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, (October 14, 2008) at 3.

    [4] Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 at 101 (June 2007) (hereinafter PA Guide].

    [5] PW 5522, Nashville-Davidson County, Version 0.

    [6] PA Guide, at 32.

     



 

Latest Events

No events

Who's Online

We have 7 guests online
© 2012 Minnesota ARES- Site Developed by Kevin Haney