Disaster Assistance Policy 9527.4
For instance, the inclusion of a very low threshold in a code that would warrant a very large upgrade or reconstruction may be deemed unreasonable. Generally, mandated upgrades to lateral force levels required for new building construction are not considered reasonable when applied to repair work.
//signed//
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
Appendix A
Case 1: Road shoulders are damaged in a declared event. Repair to predisaster design includes back-filling, compaction and grading. The applicant states that pursuant to the local code, road repairs require construction of paved shoulders, drainage swales, and berms. Upon review of the code, FEMA determines that the code applies to new construction or the rehabilitation of an entire road, but not to the repair of discrete damaged portions of the road shoulders. This code, which would considerably improve and upgrade the predisaster design of the road shoulder, does not apply to the type of repair or restoration work required. The upgrades are thus not eligible for funding pursuant to 44 CFR §206.226(d)(1) and section VII(C)(1) of this policy.
Case 2: A building is damaged in a declared disaster and is eligible for restoration. The damaged building did not have a parking garage prior to the disaster. The applicant requests funding for the construction of a parking garage based on zoning code and other local ordinances. The parking improvements do not restore or replace damaged elements. Because the code provisions related to the parking improvements bear no relationship to the disaster repairs, they do not apply to the type of restoration required and are not eligible for funding in accordance with 44 CFR §206.226(d)(1) and section VII(C)(1) of this policy.
Case 3: A school damaged in a declared disaster is eligible for replacement. The school was constructed for use by 400 students, but had a predisaster student population of 600 students. FEMA assistance would not be available to expand the school to accommodate 600 students, in accordance with 44 CFR §206.201(h). However, if current codes required more square footage per student, the work associated with meeting that current code would be eligible for funding but would be based on the predisaster designed capacity of 400 students.
Case 4: A facility designed as a school was being used as a warehouse at the time of the disaster. Consistent with 44 CFR §206.226(d)(2) and section VII(C)(2) of this policy, it would be funded for repairs in accordance with codes applicable to a warehouse because code upgrades must be based on the predisaster use of the facility. In cases such as this where a facility was being used for a lesser purpose than that for which it was designed, eligible restoration is limited to that necessary to restore the immediate predisaster use of the facility.
Case 5: A facility was designed as a warehouse but was being used as a school at the time of a declared disaster. It was not redesigned as a school. The facility would be funded for repairs in accordance with standards applicable to a warehouse rather than those applicable to the construction of a school, under 44 CFR §206.226(d)(2) and section VII(C)(2) of this policy. In this case, because the facility was never redesigned as a school, eligible work is based on the predisaster design of the facility. When predisaster use is different from predisaster design, the eligible work is based on predisaster design or use, whichever is the least costly.
Case 6: During a declared event, a culvert is washed out causing road damage. Restoring the predisaster design of the damaged road requires replacing the washed out culvert. The permit application to replace the culvert is denied by the state natural resources department, which recommends that a spanning bridge be constructed. There was no written and formally adopted standard that specifies an upgrade from culverts to spanning bridges. The decision of the state permitting official is discretionary and not based on a written, formally adopted, and implemented code. The upgrades are not eligible for funding, pursuant to 44 CFR §206.226(d)(3) and section VII(C)(3) of this policy.
Case 7: A State-owned building is damaged in a declared disaster and is eligible for restoration. A statewide code imposes seismic retrofit standards on all State-owned buildings. The code does not apply to privately owned buildings, although the local jurisdiction has authority over all facilities, both public and private. The State requests funds to upgrade the State-owned facility in compliance with the code. Because the code’s upgrade requirements do not apply to all facilities within that jurisdiction, the code does not apply uniformly to all similar facilities, and upgrades are not eligible for funding in accordance with 44 CFR §206.226(d)(4) and section VII(C)(4) of this policy.
Case 8: A fire house, previously identified as one of 20 publicly owned “critical facilities” in a jurisdiction, is damaged in a disaster and is eligible for restoration. A local ordinance in the jurisdiction requires that all “critical facilities” damaged as the result of a natural disaster be upgraded to the standards applicable to new construction for essential facilities (which are considerably more stringent than for non-essential buildings). The 20 publicly owned facilities on the “critical facility” list are not similar with reference to their basic day-to-day function (they include an airport, police station, and library) and the ordinance applies only to selected buildings within a particular occupancy or use category. The ordinance does not apply uniformly to similar types of facilities within the jurisdiction. Funding for upgrades are not eligible pursuant to 44 CFR §206.226(d)(4) and section VII(C)(4) of this policy.
Case 9: Several mobile trailers were damaged as the result of a declared event. The Applicant states that local code requires that the repairs to its mobile trailers include upgrades to the foundation systems (new tie-downs). The Applicant claims that its undamaged trailers have the improved tie-down systems in compliance with the current code. An inspection of a sampling of trailers installed by the applicant prior to the earthquake reflects that none of them has the requested tie-down anchorage system. Of the mobile trailers installed after the disaster, only two have the system. The code has not been enforced; therefore, the upgrades are not eligible for funding in accordance with 44 CFR §206.226(d)(5) and section VII(C)(5) of this policy.
Case 10: Two separate disasters damaged unreinforced masonry (URM) police stations located in California and Minnesota. Both buildings are eligible for repair to predisaster condition in conformity with current codes and standards. In both buildings, a number of the URM infill panels sustained insignificant damage; the eligible repair would consist of repointing the mortar in the areas where the cracks occurred. There was also moderate damage to infill panels in both buildings; the eligible repair includes repointing the mortar and removing and replacing damaged masonry bricks with new mortar and grout. Both of the buildings also suffered heavy damage to a number of the infill panels. Due to the severity of the damage, the infill walls need to be replaced. Reinforcement may or may not be necessary to meet the requirements of a code-compliant repair. The eligible repair scope would depend upon the seismic design category of the building (varies by location), the building occupancy category and the type of soil. In this example, replacement of the heavily damaged infill panels in the California building, based upon the location, occupancy category (essential facility), and soil type (liquefiable), calls for steel reinforcement in order to meet the minimum requirements for new construction and the upgrades would be an eligible repair cost. In contrast, the eligible repair costs for the damaged infill walls in the Minnesota facility would, based upon the location, occupancy category, and soil type (stiff soil), consist of removing and replacing the entire infill wall, without steel reinforcement. In these cases, each facility was repaired in a code-conforming manner using code-compliant methods and materials, in accordance with section 406(e)(1) of the Stafford Act and section VII(B)(3) of this policy.
Disaster Assistance Policy 9527.4 - Construction Codes and Standards (PDF 3.89 MB)
Last Modified: Thursday, 21-Feb-2008 14:12:29 EST