This page has not been translated into 한국어. Visit the 한국어 page for resources in that language.
Mold Remediation
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation:/s-FEMA-1606-DR-TX, City of Port Arthur, PW 3086, Mold Remediation
Summary: Hurricane Rita caused major damage to the City of Port Arthur (Applicant) Civic Center. FEMA prepared PW 3086 which captured estimated costs related to temporary repairs to prevent further damage to the interior, removing wet interior finishes, cleaning and drying the building, and restoring the roof and other damaged or destroyed portions of the building. Total estimated eligible costs for this PW were $1,303,552, but were reduced to $67,382 based on anticipated insurance proceeds. In August and September of 2006, samples taken at the Civic Center tested positive for mold (including black mold) and subsequently the Applicant requested $270,947 for mold remediation. FEMA denied the request for mold remediation funding on March 21, 2007. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 31, 2007. It stated that it had taken reasonable measures to prevent further damage and the spread of mold contamination. It presented a timeline of its actions and explained why mold had not been detected earlier. On October 12, 2007, FEMA denied the appeal. The Applicant submitted its second appeal and asked for $1,583,391 on December 12, 2007. It provided justification for why reasonable measures were insufficient to prevent mold damage. It included a letter from a mold assessment consultant which stated that efforts to wipe the walls of the facility with a bleach mixture after each rainfall would have cost approximately $36,000 per visit and would not have prevented the mold growth because high humidity in the building would persist until the roof and air conditioning system were permanently repaired. The Applicant also included a letter from the contractors who performed temporary repairs and initial drying and cleaning of the building that explained their scope of work. In a follow-up letter the Applicant revised the requested funding and asked for $1,253,778.
Issues: Did the Applicant take reasonable measures to prevent further damage and the spread of mold contamination?
Findings: Yes. Therefore, costs related to mold remediation and necessary repairs due to mold contamination are eligible for Public Assistance funding.
Rationale: Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation, 44 CFR §206.223(a) (1)
Hurricane Rita caused major damage to the City of Port Arthur (Applicant) Civic Center. PW 3086 captured estimated costs related to temporary repairs to prevent further damage to the interior, removing wet interior finishes, cleaning and drying the building, and restoring the roof and other damaged or destroyed portions of the building. Total estimated eligible costs for this PW were $1,303,552. Of this, FEMA deducted $1,236,170 for anticipated insurance proceeds, and obligated $67,382. The $67,382 was specifically designated for replacing an uninsured storage shed and sign.
In June of 2006, mold was visibly seen in the facility and samples tested positive for Aspergillus/Penicillum. Later testing found Stachybotrys spores (black mold). Mold remediation began in September 2006. In a letter dated October 16, 2006, the Applicant requested $270,947 for mold remediation. Mold remediation costs included tests, reports, and removing interior material. On February 9, 2007, FEMA responded by letter asking the Applicant for additional information. Based on the information provided by the Applicant, FEMA denied the request for mold remediation funding on March 21, 20007.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 31, 2007. It asked for $1,571,773 in costs related to mold remediation and restoration of the facility. It stated that the City had made every reasonable effort to expedite the repair of the Civic Centers roof (which would have reduced the presence of moisture, and thus, mold). However, the high volume of construction projects throughout the region caused shortages in contractors, labor, and materials. It presented a timeline of its actions and explained why mold had not been detected earlier. FEMA denied the first appeal on October 12, 2007, stating that the Applicants appeal had been reviewed but it did not change the eligibility determination. It restated the rationale from the March 21, 2007 letter.
Second Appeal
On December 12, 2007, the Applicant submitted its second appeal and asked for $1,583,391. It provided justification for why reasonable measures were insufficient to prevent mold damage. It included a letter from a mold assessment consultant which stated that efforts to wipe the walls of the facility with a bleach mixture after each rainfall would have cost approximately $36,000 per visit. These efforts would not have prevented the mold growth because, until the roof and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) were permanently repaired, there was no way to eliminate the high humidity in the building. The Applicant also included a letter from the contractors who performed temporary repairs and initial drying and cleaning of the building, which explained their scope of work.
In a follow-up letter dated February 14, 2008, the Applicant revised the requested funding and asked for $1,253,778. It should be noted that the Applicants insurance policy did not contain coverage for mold-related repairs (according to the February 14, 2008 letter from the Governors Division of Emergency Management to FEMA).
Discussion
Based on the information provided in this appeal, damages were not caused by the Applicants negligence. FEMA guidance, Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation, states that if reasonable measures were insufficient to prevent further damage, remediation activities may be eligible for reimbursement. The Applicant has provided evidence to indicate that it did take reasonable measures to prevent further damage, but that extenuating circumstances, such as damaged HVAC equipment and insufficient resources, contributed to the spread of mold contamination. For this reason, actual costs ($315,418) for mold remediation are eligible for FEMA assistance.
In addition, information cited from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation indicates that soft surfaces such as ceiling tiles, cellulose and fiberglass insulation, and wallboards should be replaced after being contaminated with mold. The Applicant has claimed $490,837 in costs related to interior repairs for items such as sheet rock and ceiling tiles. Replacing these items is eligible work and actual costs (minus insurance proceeds) are eligible for assistance.
The Applicant also claimed $146,068 to re-install duct work and insulation throughout the building. As described, the duct work was removed to perform mold remediation and re-installed, along with insulation. If duct work was re-installed, rather than replaced, following remediation, this is eligible work. According to the EPA guidance cited in Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation, insulation should be replaced following mold contamination, and this is also eligible work.
Finally, the Applicant claims $301,455 in costs related to replacing wiring and lighting throughout the facility. There is no indication that wiring and lighting must be replaced in buildings that have been contaminated with mold. For this reason, these costs are not eligible.
CONCLUSION
The Applicants costs related to mold remediation and necessary repairs due to mold contamination are eligible for Public Assistance. For this reason, I am partially granting this appeal and asking the Regional Administrator to obligate $952,323 (in addition to the $67,382 that is not in contention) for this PW.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1606-DR |
| Applicant | City of Port Arthur |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 245-58820-00 |
| PW ID# | Project Worksheet 3086 |
| Date Signed | 2008-10-14T04:00:00 |
Summary:
Appeal Letter
October 14, 2008
Jack Colley
Chief
Division of Emergency Management
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 4087
Austin, TX 78773-0220
Re: Second AppealCity of Port Arthur, PA ID 245-58820-00, Mold Remediation, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PW) 3086
Dear Mr. Colley:
This is in response to your letter dated February 14, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Port Arthur (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated May 31, 2007. The Applicant requests $1,253,778 in costs related to mold remediation and subsequent repairs to its Civic Center.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant took reasonable measures to prevent further damage and the spread of mold contamination. Accordingly, I am partially granting this appeal for $952,323 in costs related to mold remediation and necessary repairs due to mold contamination. By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement the decision.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI
Jack Colley
Chief
Division of Emergency Management
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 4087
Austin, TX 78773-0220
Re: Second AppealCity of Port Arthur, PA ID 245-58820-00, Mold Remediation, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, Project Worksheet (PW) 3086
Dear Mr. Colley:
This is in response to your letter dated February 14, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Port Arthur (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated May 31, 2007. The Applicant requests $1,253,778 in costs related to mold remediation and subsequent repairs to its Civic Center.
As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant took reasonable measures to prevent further damage and the spread of mold contamination. Accordingly, I am partially granting this appeal for $952,323 in costs related to mold remediation and necessary repairs due to mold contamination. By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement the decision.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Enclosure
cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDHurricane Rita caused major damage to the City of Port Arthur (Applicant) Civic Center. PW 3086 captured estimated costs related to temporary repairs to prevent further damage to the interior, removing wet interior finishes, cleaning and drying the building, and restoring the roof and other damaged or destroyed portions of the building. Total estimated eligible costs for this PW were $1,303,552. Of this, FEMA deducted $1,236,170 for anticipated insurance proceeds, and obligated $67,382. The $67,382 was specifically designated for replacing an uninsured storage shed and sign.
In June of 2006, mold was visibly seen in the facility and samples tested positive for Aspergillus/Penicillum. Later testing found Stachybotrys spores (black mold). Mold remediation began in September 2006. In a letter dated October 16, 2006, the Applicant requested $270,947 for mold remediation. Mold remediation costs included tests, reports, and removing interior material. On February 9, 2007, FEMA responded by letter asking the Applicant for additional information. Based on the information provided by the Applicant, FEMA denied the request for mold remediation funding on March 21, 20007.
First Appeal
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 31, 2007. It asked for $1,571,773 in costs related to mold remediation and restoration of the facility. It stated that the City had made every reasonable effort to expedite the repair of the Civic Centers roof (which would have reduced the presence of moisture, and thus, mold). However, the high volume of construction projects throughout the region caused shortages in contractors, labor, and materials. It presented a timeline of its actions and explained why mold had not been detected earlier. FEMA denied the first appeal on October 12, 2007, stating that the Applicants appeal had been reviewed but it did not change the eligibility determination. It restated the rationale from the March 21, 2007 letter.
Second Appeal
On December 12, 2007, the Applicant submitted its second appeal and asked for $1,583,391. It provided justification for why reasonable measures were insufficient to prevent mold damage. It included a letter from a mold assessment consultant which stated that efforts to wipe the walls of the facility with a bleach mixture after each rainfall would have cost approximately $36,000 per visit. These efforts would not have prevented the mold growth because, until the roof and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) were permanently repaired, there was no way to eliminate the high humidity in the building. The Applicant also included a letter from the contractors who performed temporary repairs and initial drying and cleaning of the building, which explained their scope of work.
In a follow-up letter dated February 14, 2008, the Applicant revised the requested funding and asked for $1,253,778. It should be noted that the Applicants insurance policy did not contain coverage for mold-related repairs (according to the February 14, 2008 letter from the Governors Division of Emergency Management to FEMA).
Discussion
Based on the information provided in this appeal, damages were not caused by the Applicants negligence. FEMA guidance, Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation, states that if reasonable measures were insufficient to prevent further damage, remediation activities may be eligible for reimbursement. The Applicant has provided evidence to indicate that it did take reasonable measures to prevent further damage, but that extenuating circumstances, such as damaged HVAC equipment and insufficient resources, contributed to the spread of mold contamination. For this reason, actual costs ($315,418) for mold remediation are eligible for FEMA assistance.
In addition, information cited from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation indicates that soft surfaces such as ceiling tiles, cellulose and fiberglass insulation, and wallboards should be replaced after being contaminated with mold. The Applicant has claimed $490,837 in costs related to interior repairs for items such as sheet rock and ceiling tiles. Replacing these items is eligible work and actual costs (minus insurance proceeds) are eligible for assistance.
The Applicant also claimed $146,068 to re-install duct work and insulation throughout the building. As described, the duct work was removed to perform mold remediation and re-installed, along with insulation. If duct work was re-installed, rather than replaced, following remediation, this is eligible work. According to the EPA guidance cited in Recovery Division Fact Sheet RP9580.100, Mold Remediation, insulation should be replaced following mold contamination, and this is also eligible work.
Finally, the Applicant claims $301,455 in costs related to replacing wiring and lighting throughout the facility. There is no indication that wiring and lighting must be replaced in buildings that have been contaminated with mold. For this reason, these costs are not eligible.
CONCLUSION
The Applicants costs related to mold remediation and necessary repairs due to mold contamination are eligible for Public Assistance. For this reason, I am partially granting this appeal and asking the Regional Administrator to obligate $952,323 (in addition to the $67,382 that is not in contention) for this PW.