Lopez Canyon Landfill

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1008-DR
Applicant	City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	037-91080
PW ID#	51003,15259
Date Signed	1998-04-01T05:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; City of Los Angeles DPW; DSRs 51003 and 15259

Cross Reference: Eligible Facility, Slope Stabilization, Landslide Policy, Pre-disaster Condition, Eligible Damages, Administrative Allowances

Summary: As a result of the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake, slope failures occurred within a downslope hillside adjacent to the parking lot for modular offices at the Lopez Canyon Landfill. Portions of the parking lot pavement were also damaged. The applicant requested that a pile and lagging system be constructed to stabilize the hillside and that the pavement area be repaired. DSR 51003 was originally prepared for this scope of work at a cost of $310,990, but suspended pending submittal of a geotechnical report to define disaster related damages. This DSR was later determined to be ineligible, as the study had not been received by FEMA. The applicant submitted a first appeal of this denial for funding, stating that the report had been completed and submitted to the State, but had not been received by FEMA. FEMA therefore reconsidered eligibility based on this report. The report identified previous instabilities within the hillside, such that it was concluded that the damages within the hillside could not be solely attributed to the disaster. Stabilization of the hillside was found to be the responsibility of the applicant. DSR 15259 was prepared to fund repair of the damaged pavement based on the extent of damages documented at the initial site inspection. The applicant's second appeal asserts that the entire site should be considered a facility such that the slopes should be eligible for stabilization and restoration. Additionally, the applicant asserts that an additional 8,579 sf of pavement replacement and repairs to a debris basin should be funded. Finally, the applicant is requesting reimbursement for site inspections made by its employees, and for the cost of the geotechnical report.

Issues:

1. Is slope stabilization eligible?
2. Is the additional pavement quantity eligible?
3. Are the debris basin repairs eligible?
4. Are the costs for the site inspections and assessment of damages eligible?
5. Are the costs for the geotechnical study eligible?

Findings:

1. No. The failures occurred within a natural hillside which had experienced pre-disaster instabilities. Stabilization is the responsibility of the applicant.
2. No. No documentation has been provided to support that the damages were caused by the disaster or that the extent of the damages required replacement.
3. No. No documentation depicting the disaster related damages to the debris basin has been provided.
4. No. Such costs are covered under the administrative allowance.
5. Yes. A supplemental DSR will be prepared to fund eligible costs pending receipt of further breakdown of costs by the applicant.

Rationale:Stafford Act Section 406, Landslide Policy, 44CFR 206.223(a), 44CFR 206.228

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
As a result of the January 1994 Northridge earthquake, damages occurred at the Lopez Canyon Sanitary Landfill facility located in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (applicant) requested funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for repair of their damaged facility. On June 27, 1994, a FEMA inspection team, consisting of representatives of FEMA, the California Office of Emergency Services (State) and the applicant, visited the site to observe the reported damages.

Damage survey report (DSR) 51003 was prepared to repair damages to a slope and parking lot located behind the landfill management and operations modular offices (trailers). The earthquake reportedly resulted in several slope failures in the downslope hillside adjacent to the parking lot and cracking and displacement of portions of the parking lot pavement. The applicant requested that a soldier pile and lagging system be constructed along the perimeter of the parking lot to prevent further damages and to stabilize the area. Based on recommendations of their geotechnical consultant, MAA Consultants, City Engineers designed the stabilization system. The cost of the pile and lagging system and repairs to the slope and pavement were estimated at $310,990. The Federal Coordinating Officer suspended DSR 51003 pending submittal of a geotechnical engineering study to define disaster-related damages. Although OES correspondence records indicate transmittal of the completed geotechnical report to FEMA in March 1995, the FEMA Regional office had no record of having received the report. On October 21, 1995, DSR 51003 was processed as ineligible on the basis that sufficient documentation had not been provided to substantiate the scope and associated cost of the repair work.

First Appeal
In a letter dated July 3, 1996, the State transmitted the applicant's first appeal of FEMA's determination of ineligibility for DSR 51003, requesting full reimbursement of the $310,990 estimated to restore the slopes and the pavement area. The applicant stated that the geotechnical report had been submitted to the State prior to FEMA's determination of ineligibility, such that this determination was not justified. The applicant again submitted the geotechnical report with the first appeal. Further, the State added that a portion of the repairs should have been classified as emergency work, citing the preventative nature of the work as their basis for this position.

The geotechnical report submitted by the applicant, entitled "Landslide Area Investigation for City Trailer Area at Lopez Canyon Sanitary Landfill", prepared by MAA Engineering Consultants, Inc., dated July 19, 1994 (MAA 1994 Report), was reviewed during the first appeal process to determine its impact on the eligibility of DSR 51003. Based on the information provided in this report, it was found that the hillside had experienced previous instabilities, such that the condition of the hillside after the disaster could not be solely attributed to the disaster. Referencing the FEMA Landslide Policy, the Federal Coordinating Officer concluded that the stabilization of the hillside was the responsibility of the applicant. It was also concluded that the completed scope of work did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for eligible emergency work. The eligible scope of work was limited to repair of the parking lot pavement, including removal and replacement of 4,100 square feet (sf) of damaged asphalt, excavation and replacement of the loosened fill materials beneath this pavement area, and sealing of an additional 1,000 linear feet of cracks in the parking area. DSR 15259 was prepared for this scope of work in the amount of $25,390.

Second Appeal
The applicant submitted a second appeal of FEMA's determination of limited eligibility, transmitted by the State in a letter dated July 28, 1997. The applicant asserts that the stabilization of the failed slopes adjacent to the parking lot and debris basins are integral to the restoration of the facility, and that all work was permanent in nature and should not be considered emergency work as suggested by the State. It is noted that DSR 51003 documented only slope failures within the downslope hillside adjacent to the facility parking lot. The applicant's second appeal provides the first reference to the failed slopes at the debris basin. Further, the applicant indicated that the quantity of pavement restoration should be increased by 8,579 sf, based on additional quantities included in a change order for the completed work (additional cost $30,455). Finally, the applicant is requesting reimbursement for the geotechnical report prepared for this site ($6,575), and for costs associated with the applicant's personnel performing the initial investigation and assessment of damage, and for facilitating a tour of the site for FEMA and the State ($6,739). The State's transmittal letter only partially supports the applicant's second appeal position, recommending that the applicant be reimbursed for only the geotechnical report, and for any safety inspections if performed by the applicant.

DISCUSSION
Eligibility of Slope Stabilization
In review of eligibility of slope stabilization for this project, two geotechnical reports prepared by MAA Engineering Consultants, Inc. were reviewed. These reports included the MAA 1994 Report as referenced earlier, and the September 1993 MAA Report (MAA 1993 Report) which was prepared to evaluate the earlier slope failures at this site. The MAA 1993 Report identified slope failures which occurred adjacent to the parking lot and the debris basins during the heavy rains in the winter of 1993, as well as prior to 1993. The report indicated that local grading operations had placed earthfill on the upper portions of several steep slopes causing potentially unstable conditions. Consistent with this statement, the failures were found to be relatively shallow, localized primarily within these loose fill materials. Only a portion of the failure adjacent to the parking lot extended into the weathered rock, but in neither location were the landslides related to instability in the unweathered bedrock. To stabilize the slopes, the MAA 1993 Report recommended installing a system of soldier piles and lagging along the perimeter of both the trailer parking lot and debris basin area. The MAA 1994 Report incorporated the finding of the earlier study and explorations and analyses performed after the earthquake, but addressed additional failures only within the slopes adjacent to the parking lot. The recommendation of the MAA 1994 Report was to extend the lateral extent of the soldier pile and lagging system around the perimeter of the parking lot. No repairs or efforts to stabilize the 1993 slide areas had been made prior to the 1994 earthquake.

The determination of eligibility for permanent restoration funding of facilities affected by landslides occurring within supporting ground involves careful identification of both the eligible facility and the eligible work to restore the facility to either its pre-disaster condition or function. The applicant states that "the entire landfill is a facility and should be reviewed as such in evaluating earthquake damages". However, eligible facility is defined in 44 CFR 206.201(c) as any publicly or privately owned building, works, system, or equipment, built or manufactured, or an improved and maintained natural feature. For this project, the components of the eligible facility would include the parking lot pavement cross-section plus any engineered soil or rock materials placed at the time the facility was constructed. As indicated above, portions of the slopes adjacent to the pavement were modified by placeme tep slopes. The documentation included with the DSR indicates that this fill material was not placed as a controlled, engineered fill, such that this action does not constitute an engineered improvement of the slopes. Accordingly, the slopes are found to be unimproved, natural features, and do not meet the definition of an eligible facility, such that they, in themselves, are not eligible for permanent restoration.

To provide guidance on determining eligible work for facilities where supporting natural ground has been damaged due to a disaster related landslide, FEMA issued the Response and Recovery Directorate Policy No. 4511.300 A - Landslide Policy Relating to Public Facilities (Landslide Policy), dated November 30, 1995. This document was the result of a review of an existing policy that was published in 1984, and essentially was a restatement of that policy. The Landslide Policy states that, based on Section 406 of the Stafford Act, only damaged or destroyed public facilities and the related integral ground mass are eligible for restoration. This section of the policy suggests that some portion of the adjacent ground mass may be eligible for restoration, if necessary to restore the function of the facility. However, eligibility for such funding is subject to the circumstances that led to the failure, as discussed below.

According to the Landslide Policy, when the post-disaster condition of the site is unstable, then permanent restoration of the facility is eligible only after the site has been stabilized. The responsibility for stabilizing the site depends upon the cause of the post-disaster instability. If the post-disaster instability is exclusively being caused by a condition created by the disaster, then the Federal Coordinating Officer may provide funding to restore the function of the facility, including providing stable ground. However, if the post-disaster instability is caused, either in part or exclusively, by a condition or geologic feature that existed prior to the disaster, then the applicant is responsible for ensuring the site is stable before and after any Federal assistance is provided for permanent restoration of the facility and integral ground. Based on the information provided in the MAA Report, and as indicated by the applicant, the slopes damaged during the disaster had experienced previous instabilities (localized slope failures) during and prior to the previous 1993 storms. Failed slope conditions had remained unrepaired at the time of the 1994 earthquake. Reactivation and enlargement of the earlier failures occurred during the earthquake, plus additional failures occurred along the length of the parking lot perimeter slopes, apparently due to similar unstable slope conditions. Accordingly, as the site is found to have pre-existing conditions which contributed to the disaster damages, it is concluded that stabilization of the failed slopes is the responsibility of the applicant. The eligible work is therefore limited to restoration of the parking lot pavement and excavation and replacement of the underlying fill material as provided for in DSR 15259.

Additional Pavement Repairs
DSR 15259 was prepared to repair the damaged portion (4,100 sf) of the parking lot pavement that was documented during the site inspection. In their second appeal, the applicant indicated that an additional 8,579 sf of pavement area also required replacement and requested additional funding in accordance with their project change order in the amount of $30,455. However, no documentation was provided with their appeal to support that these damages were the result of the disaster, nor that the extent of such damages necessitated replacement of the pavement section. Further, FEMA had not been notified of these damages within the deadline to report additional damages resulting from the Northridge earthquake (June 30, 1995). Repairs of the pavement have been completed prior to FEMA being given the opportunity to review the conditions for eligibility for funding. Accordingly, in the absence of documentation to support the cause and extent of these damages, these additional repairs are not eligible for FEMA assistance. Eligible repair efforts are limited to those documented at the site inspection and provided for in DSR 15259.

Debris Basin
As stated previously, DSR 51003 documented only slope failures within the downslope hillside adjacent to the facility parking lot. Specific damages to the debris basin, as referenced in the applicant's second appeal, were not documented in DSR 51003 or addressed in the MAA 1994 Report. The 1993 MAA report cites landslide damage that occurred to the debris basin following the 1993 storms. To be eligible for FEMA assistance, repairs to a facility must be required as a direct result of the disaster event. Thus, repairs to the debris basin necessitated by the 1993 storms are not eligible for public assistance funding under the Northridge earthquake disaster. It is unclear what damages, if any, occurred within the debris basin slopes due to the earthquake. As no disaster related damages were identified at the time of the site inspection, there is no basis to provide permanent restoration funding for the debris basin.

Costs for Site Inspections
The applicant's second appeal requests funding for personnel who performed the initial investigation and assessment of damages, and who facilitated a tour of the site for FEMA and OES representatives. The total cost for these efforts are reported by the applicant as $6,739. However, such efforts as described in the supporting documentation are covered by the administrative allowance provided for in 44 CFR  206.228, and are therefore not eligible expenses. The State indicated that if safety inspections were performed by the applicant that such costs may be eligible for reimbursement. However, the documentation does not support that such safety inspections were made.

Eligibility of Geotechnical Report
In response to FEMA's request for additional documentation to support the disaster related damages within the parking lot slopes, the applicant authorized their engineering consultant to conduct a geotechnical study. Accordingly, the cost associated specifically with this engineering effort is eligible for FEMA assistance. The applicant indicated that the total cost for these services was $6,575. However, the documentation for these costs indicated that the services included not only the geologic inspection of the landfill following the earthquake, but also marking of soldier pile locations and an evaluation of the proposed placement area for three new maintenance trailers. These latter two efforts are not eligible for FEMA funding, as they do not relate directly to the eligible scope of work. Accordingly, it is necessary for the applicant to submit specific cost information related only to geotechnical efforts in identifying the post-disaster condition of the hillside. Analyses, design and construction efforts associated with the slope stabilization efforts or trailer placement assessment are not eligible for reimbursement. Upon receipt of this additional documentation, the Federal Coordinating Officer will prepare a supplemental DSR for the eligible funding.

CONCLUSION
Based on the documentation provided with the second appeal, I have determined that slope stabilization of the failed hillside is the responsibility of the applicant and not eligible for FEMA assistance. The eligible scope of work for the damaged site is limited to repair of the damaged parking lot pavement area identified at the initial site inspection (4,100 sf) and funded in DSR 15259. No documentation has been provided to support that the additional pavement or debris basin repairs performed by the applicant were requirefoCosts associated with damage assessment and representing the applicant during site inspections are funded under the administrative cost allowance, and are therefore not eligible as separate scope items. Costs associated with the completion of a geotechnical study to identify eligible damages are eligible. A supplemental DSR will be prepared by the Federal Coordinating Officer to fund the eligible costs upon receipt of further breakdown of such costs by the applicant.