Los Nietos Middle School Gas Pipeline
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Los Nietos School District
Cross
Reference: Disaster-related Damages
Summary: Following the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake, DSR 22958 was approved for replacement of two underground natural gas pipelines (796 linear feet of a 4 inch line and 60 linear feet of a 1.5 inch line) at the Los Nietos Middle School as Category G ($65,972) including a 3% allowance for construction inspection. DSR 22951 was also approved as Category B to provide installation of a temporary above ground gas supply line from the gas meter to the kitchen. In October 1994, the subgrantee submitted a request for supplemental funding for project management and A/E fees. FEMA denied the request in October 1996, stating documentation did not support the basis for, and the actual costs related to, project management and A/E fees. In February 1997, the subgrantee submitted a first appeal with copies of invoices from the A/E firm and the project management firm. The eligibility of the original project was reviewed and it was determined that the pipeline leaks were related to a pre-disaster corroded condition rather than the disaster. FEMA denied the appeal in September 1997, and DSR 22958 funds were de-obligated with DSR 46606. In a November 1997, second appeal, the subgrantee argued that FEMA may have misunderstood the work done at the school, that a major school modernization project planned prior to the disaster did not include underground exterior gas pipeline replacement, and increases in the gas usage for several months following the disaster indicate that the disaster caused leaks.
Issues: 1) Were the pipeline leaks disaster-related? 2) Are repairs to the pipeline eligible?
Findings: 1) No. No pre-disaster records document that the pipelines did not leak prior to the disaster and there is no documentation to support that the disaster caused the pipelines to leak. 2) No. Though FEMA funded emergency temporary gas pipelines, replacement of the permanent pipelines is not eligible because the disaster did not damage the pipelines.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
BACKGROUND
As a result of the January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake, various schools within the Los Nietos School District experienced damages. Damage Survey Reports (DSR) 22951 and 22958 were both prepared on June 15, 1994, for the Los Nietos Middle School. DSR 22951 was prepared as Category B to provide installation of a temporary above ground gas supply line from the gas meter to the kitchen. DSR 22958 was approved as Category G ($65,972), for replacement of 796 linear feet of a 4 inch underground line and 60 linear feet of a 1.5 inch underground line and 3% for construction inspection.
On October 19, 1994, the subgrantee submitted a request for supplemental funding for management and architectural and engineering (A/E) fees, estimated based on a percentage of the total project cost. FEMA denied the request on October 30, 1996, stating documentation did not sufficiently support the basis for, and the actual costs related to, project management and A/E fees.
First Appeal
On March 26, 1997, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the subgrantee's first appeal which was based on the actual costs incurred in project management and A/E fees with copies of invoices from the A/E firm and the project management firm. In the review of the first appeal, the eligibility of the original project was reviewed and it was determined that the pipeline leakage was related to its pre-disaster corroded condition rather than the disaster and the replacement of the pipeline was performed as part of a modernization project. Therefore, FEMA denied the appeal on September 18, 1997, and the previously obligated funds of DSR 22958 were de-obligated with DSR 46606 ($65,972).
Second Appeal
On January 12, 1998, OES forwarded and concurred with the subgrantee's second appeal based on an argument that the pipeline was damaged by the disaster. The subgrantee's second appeal is based on a belief that FEMA may have misunderstood the repair work done at the school, a school modernization project planned prior to the disaster did not include replacement of underground exterior gas pipeline, and increases in the gas usage for several months following the disaster were indicative of a leaking pipeline. OES supports the second appeal.
DISCUSSION
Disaster-Related Damages
The subgrantee maintains that the replacement of the gas pipeline was not planned prior to the disaster, although major renovation work was underway at the time of the disaster. Further, a letter from the local gas company (The Gas Company) is included with the second appeal which describes an increase in gas usage following the disaster.
Several aspects of the disaster-related damages issues are discussed herein. However, none of the documentation provided by the subgrantee supports that the pipeline leaked or did not leak prior to the disaster. The only documentation of a gas pipeline leak is by The Gas Company on May 18 and 20, 1994.
Gas pipeline leakage was first documented by The Gas Company on May 18, 1994. Prior to May 18, a contractor damaged an interior gas pipeline. However, the subgrantee did not notify the inspectors of these damages to the gas pipeline during the June 1994 site inspection.
The subgrantee claims that the gas usage increased in the months following the disaster. There was an increase in each of the three full months that follow the disaster (February - 224 therms, March - 136 therms, and April - 531 therms). January and May only provide partial data since the disaster occurred during January and the subgrantee responded to leaks in May. When considering the wide range in the increases and the variations in the demand of facility equipment for gas, it cannot be concluded that the increases are strong indicators of a leak. Further, the gas usage rates show that during the year before the disaster (1993) 15,1700 therms of gas were used, while the year following the disaster (1995) 12,262 therms of gas were used. This shows a significant reduction in the gas used, which would only support an argument that the pipeline leaked before the disaster. Again, these gas usage rates are not adjusted for heating-degree days and/or improvements made (i.e., energy management system, water heating, pipeline repairs) which would reduce the rate of gas usage. Also, during the year of the disaster (1994), 11,291 therms of gas were used which is less than in both 1993 and 1995 and during May 1994, the gas used (368 therms) which was less than May of 1993 or 1995 (782 and 975 therms, respectively). Therefore, at best, the gas usage data does not support that the disaster caused damage. Were the pipeline to leak prior to the disaster, it is possible that it went undetected since exterior leaks are not easily detected.
The subgrantee's documentation does not support that any gas pipeline leaks were caused by the disaster. FEMA is unable to provide public assistance funding without documentation that supports that damages are disaster-related.
CONCLUSION
The documentation submitted does not support that the gas pipeline was damaged as a result of the disaster. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1008-DR |
| Applicant | Los Nietos School District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-91193 |
| PW ID# | 22958/46606 |
| Date Signed | 1998-08-19T04:00:00 |
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; Los Nietos School District
Cross
Reference: Disaster-related Damages
Summary: Following the January 1994 Northridge Earthquake, DSR 22958 was approved for replacement of two underground natural gas pipelines (796 linear feet of a 4 inch line and 60 linear feet of a 1.5 inch line) at the Los Nietos Middle School as Category G ($65,972) including a 3% allowance for construction inspection. DSR 22951 was also approved as Category B to provide installation of a temporary above ground gas supply line from the gas meter to the kitchen. In October 1994, the subgrantee submitted a request for supplemental funding for project management and A/E fees. FEMA denied the request in October 1996, stating documentation did not support the basis for, and the actual costs related to, project management and A/E fees. In February 1997, the subgrantee submitted a first appeal with copies of invoices from the A/E firm and the project management firm. The eligibility of the original project was reviewed and it was determined that the pipeline leaks were related to a pre-disaster corroded condition rather than the disaster. FEMA denied the appeal in September 1997, and DSR 22958 funds were de-obligated with DSR 46606. In a November 1997, second appeal, the subgrantee argued that FEMA may have misunderstood the work done at the school, that a major school modernization project planned prior to the disaster did not include underground exterior gas pipeline replacement, and increases in the gas usage for several months following the disaster indicate that the disaster caused leaks.
Issues: 1) Were the pipeline leaks disaster-related? 2) Are repairs to the pipeline eligible?
Findings: 1) No. No pre-disaster records document that the pipelines did not leak prior to the disaster and there is no documentation to support that the disaster caused the pipelines to leak. 2) No. Though FEMA funded emergency temporary gas pipelines, replacement of the permanent pipelines is not eligible because the disaster did not damage the pipelines.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
Appeal Letter
August 19, 1998
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office, Public Assistance Section
74 Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 12, 1998, submittal of the Los Nietos School District's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 22958 under FEMA-1008-DR-CA. The subgrantee is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination that the underground gas pipelines were not damaged by the disaster event.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, I have found that no information has been submitted to support overturning the determination by the Federal Coordinating Officer to de-obligate DSR 22958. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Please see the enclosed analysis for more details.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
FEMA Region IX
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Field Office, Public Assistance Section
74 Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 12, 1998, submittal of the Los Nietos School District's second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 22958 under FEMA-1008-DR-CA. The subgrantee is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) determination that the underground gas pipelines were not damaged by the disaster event.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted in support of the appeal, I have found that no information has been submitted to support overturning the determination by the Federal Coordinating Officer to de-obligate DSR 22958. Therefore, the appeal is denied. Please see the enclosed analysis for more details.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
FEMA Region IX
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUND
As a result of the January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake, various schools within the Los Nietos School District experienced damages. Damage Survey Reports (DSR) 22951 and 22958 were both prepared on June 15, 1994, for the Los Nietos Middle School. DSR 22951 was prepared as Category B to provide installation of a temporary above ground gas supply line from the gas meter to the kitchen. DSR 22958 was approved as Category G ($65,972), for replacement of 796 linear feet of a 4 inch underground line and 60 linear feet of a 1.5 inch underground line and 3% for construction inspection.
On October 19, 1994, the subgrantee submitted a request for supplemental funding for management and architectural and engineering (A/E) fees, estimated based on a percentage of the total project cost. FEMA denied the request on October 30, 1996, stating documentation did not sufficiently support the basis for, and the actual costs related to, project management and A/E fees.
First Appeal
On March 26, 1997, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) transmitted the subgrantee's first appeal which was based on the actual costs incurred in project management and A/E fees with copies of invoices from the A/E firm and the project management firm. In the review of the first appeal, the eligibility of the original project was reviewed and it was determined that the pipeline leakage was related to its pre-disaster corroded condition rather than the disaster and the replacement of the pipeline was performed as part of a modernization project. Therefore, FEMA denied the appeal on September 18, 1997, and the previously obligated funds of DSR 22958 were de-obligated with DSR 46606 ($65,972).
Second Appeal
On January 12, 1998, OES forwarded and concurred with the subgrantee's second appeal based on an argument that the pipeline was damaged by the disaster. The subgrantee's second appeal is based on a belief that FEMA may have misunderstood the repair work done at the school, a school modernization project planned prior to the disaster did not include replacement of underground exterior gas pipeline, and increases in the gas usage for several months following the disaster were indicative of a leaking pipeline. OES supports the second appeal.
DISCUSSION
Disaster-Related Damages
The subgrantee maintains that the replacement of the gas pipeline was not planned prior to the disaster, although major renovation work was underway at the time of the disaster. Further, a letter from the local gas company (The Gas Company) is included with the second appeal which describes an increase in gas usage following the disaster.
Several aspects of the disaster-related damages issues are discussed herein. However, none of the documentation provided by the subgrantee supports that the pipeline leaked or did not leak prior to the disaster. The only documentation of a gas pipeline leak is by The Gas Company on May 18 and 20, 1994.
Gas pipeline leakage was first documented by The Gas Company on May 18, 1994. Prior to May 18, a contractor damaged an interior gas pipeline. However, the subgrantee did not notify the inspectors of these damages to the gas pipeline during the June 1994 site inspection.
The subgrantee claims that the gas usage increased in the months following the disaster. There was an increase in each of the three full months that follow the disaster (February - 224 therms, March - 136 therms, and April - 531 therms). January and May only provide partial data since the disaster occurred during January and the subgrantee responded to leaks in May. When considering the wide range in the increases and the variations in the demand of facility equipment for gas, it cannot be concluded that the increases are strong indicators of a leak. Further, the gas usage rates show that during the year before the disaster (1993) 15,1700 therms of gas were used, while the year following the disaster (1995) 12,262 therms of gas were used. This shows a significant reduction in the gas used, which would only support an argument that the pipeline leaked before the disaster. Again, these gas usage rates are not adjusted for heating-degree days and/or improvements made (i.e., energy management system, water heating, pipeline repairs) which would reduce the rate of gas usage. Also, during the year of the disaster (1994), 11,291 therms of gas were used which is less than in both 1993 and 1995 and during May 1994, the gas used (368 therms) which was less than May of 1993 or 1995 (782 and 975 therms, respectively). Therefore, at best, the gas usage data does not support that the disaster caused damage. Were the pipeline to leak prior to the disaster, it is possible that it went undetected since exterior leaks are not easily detected.
The subgrantee's documentation does not support that any gas pipeline leaks were caused by the disaster. FEMA is unable to provide public assistance funding without documentation that supports that damages are disaster-related.
CONCLUSION
The documentation submitted does not support that the gas pipeline was damaged as a result of the disaster. Therefore, the appeal is denied.
Last updated