Direct Result of Disaster, Support Documentation

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From April 28 to May 11, 2017, flooding in eastern Missouri impacted the Fenton Wastewater Treatment Plant, owned and operated by the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (Applicant).  Floodwaters damaged a section of exterior chain link fence and a 65-foot long inclined bar fine screen system.  The fine screen uses a moving belt of 114 perforated filter panels to separate and lift solid debris from incoming wastewater.  The Applicant requested $233,962.50 in Public Assistance (PA) to rebuild the fine screen, repair the chain link fence, and reimburse Direct Administrative Costs (DAC).[1]

FEMA developed Project Worksheet (PW) 977 to document category F (utilities) permanent work to restore the fine screen system, but noted that a review of the Applicant’s predisaster maintenance records “implies that this equipment might have been out of service and awaiting repairs prior to the incident period.”[2]  FEMA determined that the Applicant had not documented that the damages were a direct result of the disaster instead of deferred maintenance.  FEMA found work to restore the fine screen ineligible for PA funding and did not develop a scope of work for the project.  Finally, FEMA noted that the fine screen had been repaired during or shortly after the incident period to allow for its continued operation, though the Applicant considered such repairs temporary.  In a letter dated January 31, 2018, FEMA notified the Applicant and the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (Grantee) of the eligibility decision.

First Appeal

The Applicant appealed on March 19, 2018, asserting FEMA based the eligibility decision on a predisaster maintenance work order showing a single damaged filter panel on the fine screen’s belt.  The Applicant maintained that the 113 remaining panels making up the fine screen were undamaged prior to the disaster and that the fine screen continued to perform its intended function before being damaged by the flood.  The Applicant stated that rocks washed into the screen during the disaster, damaging most of the other filter panels.  Further, it “suspected” there was additional disaster-related damage, as the fine screen, previously quiet, “emitted popping sounds and other sounds not common to a good running screen” following the disaster.[3]  The Grantee transmitted the appeal on April 9, 2018, expressing support for the Applicant’s claim.

FEMA issued a Final Request for Information (RFI) asserting that the bent panel may have enabled large debris to pass through the filter panels, entering the fine screen system and damaging interior mechanical components.  Additionally, a “loud clanging noise” noted prior to the disaster indicated the fine screen required repairs.  Therefore, considering the post-disaster noises claimed by the Applicant, FEMA found that the temporary (“emergency”) repairs completed in the aftermath of the disaster “appear to have brought the unit back to pre-disaster function.”[4]  Among other items, FEMA requested documentation showing the Applicant completed repairs to predisaster work orders, an explanation of the single bent filter panel, and an assessment of how the bent panel might pass debris into the fine screen system, damaging mechanical and other operating components.

In response, the Applicant provided explanations for the work orders listed in its predisaster maintenance record, stating most were created to track preventive maintenance requirements.  Regarding the “loud clanging noise,” the Applicant stated it had investigated and eliminated the source of the noise, and returned the fine screen to service, prior to the disaster.[5]  Regarding the single bent panel, the Applicant acknowledged a potential loss of efficiency in the function of the fine screen, but again noted the damage was limited to just 1 of 114 similar panels.  It asserted only a small area was bent, which did not warrant immediate replacement.

The FEMA Region VII Regional Administrator (RA) denied the appeal on September 18, 2018.  The RA determined that pre-existing damage, including perforations and the bent filter panel, likely enabled damage to the fine screen during the disaster.  Additionally, the RA found that the fine screen “was not operating well and [was] making noises both before and after the disaster;” as a result, the temporary repairs completed to keep the fine screen operational had effectively restored its predisaster function.[6]  The Applicant had not demonstrated that the damages claimed were a direct result of the disaster, and funding to rebuild the fine screen was ineligible.

Second Appeal

In a second appeal dated November 13, 2018, the Applicant requests FEMA approve $233,962.50 in PA funding for work to rebuild the fine screen, repair the chain link fence, and reimburse DAC.  The Applicant acknowledges the pre-existing damage to the single filter panel, but reiterates its earlier statements regarding predisaster conditions, and states the fine screen was well maintained and operational prior to the incident period.  The Applicant notes that a manufacturer’s representative inspected the fine screen and stated that post-disaster damage “was more extensive than what would be caused by one damaged panel.”[7]  Finally, the Applicant faults the analysis in the first appeal decision, asserting FEMA did not consult with experienced personnel in making the eligibility determination, which was based on opinion and contained no evidence that a single damaged panel allowed debris to bypass the fine screen system.  The Grantee transmitted the appeal on November 16, 2018, expressing support.

FEMA issued another RFI on August 6, 2019, noting that the lack of documentation in the administrative record supporting the Applicant’s claim could lead to denial of the appeal.  Among other items, FEMA requested the Applicant provide documentation of: (1) the specific damages to the fine screen’s components; (2) an explanation of how the disaster damaged the specific components at issue; and (3) the specific items of work that would restore the fine screen to its predisaster condition.

In response, the Applicant stated that a previously-submitted manufacturer’s estimate to rebuild the fine screen contained “specific information regarding damages to the fine screen’s components.”[8]  The Applicant asserted that flooding during the disaster caused a “hydraulic overload” of the fine screen, and that rocks had washed into and bent filter and side panels during the flood, which then caused damage to a panel cleaning brush.  Finally, the Applicant asserted that the manufacturer’s estimate contained the items of work needed to restore the fine screen.  Among other items, the Applicant submitted post-disaster photographs of the fine screen, and re-submitted the manufacturer’s estimate and other contract documentation.

Discussion

An item of work must be required as the result of a major disaster event to be eligible for PA funding.[9]  Damage that results from a cause other than the designated event, such as deterioration or deferred maintenance, is not eligible.[10]  An applicant must demonstrate that the claimed damage was caused directly by the disaster.[11]  To that end, FEMA may request documentation supporting the eligibility of the damage claimed, such as documentation showing the predisaster condition of the facility, photographs of specific damage, and detailed descriptions of the damage with specific dimensions, among other items.[12]

1. Assessing Predisaster Condition

The Applicant states that the fine screen was operational prior to the incident period, and thus any post-disaster damage was necessarily the result of flooding during the declared event.  To demonstrate the predisaster condition of the fine screen, the Applicant relies on a log of maintenance work orders dated between August 2015 and May 2017.  Over this period, the log shows that the Applicant completed nine work orders related to preventive maintenance, inspected the fine screen twice, and on two occasions identified and then repaired damage.  One of these repairs resolved the loud clanging noise noted in the first appeal determination, and FEMA can find no other record of abnormal noises emanating from the fine screen before the disaster.  The only remaining item of damage recorded in the log is the single bent filter panel, which the Applicant acknowledged was present during the incident period.

The maintenance log demonstrates a program of regular maintenance in the two-year period before the declared event.  FEMA agrees with the Applicant that the fine screen was likely operational in some capacity before the disaster.  Nevertheless, the Applicant acknowledged that the fine screen was also operational in some capacity after the disaster,[13] following unspecified repairs that are not the subject of this appeal.  Consequently, FEMA is unable to verify the cause of any damage by assessing the overall operation of the fine screen, as the Applicant argued.

Instead, considering the complexity of the fine screen system and the extent of the damages the Applicant claims, FEMA must examine the condition of specific operating components.[14]  However, none of the preventive maintenance log entries notes specific components that were inspected or maintained, nor do they comment on observed predisaster conditions.  The documentation provided by the Applicant to demonstrate predisaster conditions is inconclusive and does not preclude or confirm pre-existing damage to the fine screen’s operating components.

1. Assessing Post-disaster Damages

A similar problem is evident when assessing post-disaster damages.  Project formulation documents only note non-specific damage to the fine screen system as a singular unit, without reference to the components that comprise the system.  In response to the RFI on second appeal, the Applicant states that the manufacturer’s estimate contains information supporting damages to specific components.  However, the relevant section of the estimate is a list of recommended replacement parts; nothing in it describes damage to the existing components, and there is no reference to the disaster or the effects of flooding.  To the extent that the estimate reflects the results of a post-disaster inspection of the fine screen, as the Applicant asserts, it does not record the manufacturer’s observations or any other information that might assist FEMA in verifying the presence or cause of specific damages.

Finally, the Applicant submitted 18 photographs of the fine screen taken during a post-disaster inspection.  These appear to show components of the screen (e.g., drives, connecting arms, filter panels, etc.), however, in the majority of the photographs damage is not self-evident.[15]  Nothing directly accompanies the photographs that further identifies or explains any damage.  The Applicant’s explanation of how the disaster caused the damage, provided in its response to the RFI on second appeal, either cannot be substantiated with the photographs or does not add further clarification. 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not provided documentation demonstrating that damages to its fine screen system were caused by the declared flooding event.  Therefore, items of work to restore the fine screen remain ineligible for PA funding.  The appeal is denied.