Direct Result of Disaster

Heavy rainfall that began on May 25, 2008 caused flooding on June 13, 2008 at the Water Pollution Control Facility, where the Applicant operates a sludge incinerator, and resulted in an emergency shutdown of the incinerator.  In August 2009, FEMA prepared a version of the PW9000 to fund replacement of the incinerator.  In March 2011, FEMA re-inspected the facility and determined: (1) certain components of the facility were not damaged as a result of the disaster; (2) at the time of the disaster, the facility was functioning at a lesser capacity than designed; and (3) certain improvements and code and standard upgrades were not eligible.  As a result of the inspection, in October 2011, FEMA prepared another version to the PW approving the revised repair estimate for the facility. In the first appeal, the Applicant requested FEMA find repair costs for eleven components of the incinerator eligible.  The Regional Administrator partially approved the first appeal.  On second appeal, the Applicant argues that repair costs associated four components should be found eligible.

Authorities Discussed

• 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(1)

• FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9524.4, Repair vs. Replacement of a Facility under 44 CFR §206.226(f) (The 50 Percent Rule) (Mar. 25, 2009)

Headnotes

• Under 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), General work eligibility, in order to be eligible for financial assistance, an item of work must be required as the result of the emergency or major disaster event
  • The Applicant provided evidence that the WHRB and the LPO were damaged as a result of the disaster by substantiating the pre-disaster and post-disaster condition of the two components.  A review of affidavits from the Applicant’s engineer and employees demonstrate how these components were damaged after the disaster.  Therefore, these components are eligible for funding.
  • The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the Nine Large Burners or the Air and Gas Piping Valves were damaged as a result of the disaster.  The components were not submerged during the flooding, and the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to show that they were damaged.  Thus, those components are not eligible for public assistance funding.