Greenwich House

Still Stands Behind

A Couple Of Hurdles

By Kendra Bobowick

The wrecking ball is not yet sailing toward the bricks supporting Greenwich House, but it is coming. Last week environmental consultant Russell Bartley wrote to the town that “we are all set to proceed,” with work at Greenwich House — a Fairfield Hills building slated for demolition. He backed up a bit and clarified this week that what he had meant was “that the plaster material was appropriately classified and we can proceed to finalize the plans … for removal of asbestos-containing material and hazardous substances prior to demolition.”

“We’re close. We’re moving along,” said Public Works Director Fred Hurley. “I’m happy.” Hoping to avoid misunderstanding, he clarified, “People may want it down tomorrow, but there is a process.”

Department of Environmental Protection Sanitary Engineer Ross Bunnell said Tuesday that the town is “ready to start planning the demolition, to begin preparations.”

Earlier this week he was studying asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous material surveys from Greenwich House. He also said he would be confirming with town officials their immediate plans. “Once we’ve done that, as far as I am concerned they can remove materials and begin demolition,” he said, providing that the state Department of Public Health is also satisfied.

Eager for work to start up, Mr Hurley lingers on one point specifically: characterizing the asbestos in ceiling tile as “nonregulated material” was “huge, that’s huge, now we can follow the process of taking the building down.” He explained that the classification also helped define the job as “not a complicated and expensive removal process.”

Following Mr Bartley’s communication last week, Department of Public Health (DPH) spokesman William Gerrish forwarded to The Bee a reminder from Supervising Environmental Analyst Ron Skomro to Mr Bartley: “A sufficient number of samples must be collected and analyzed …” And, “The plan [provided to the state by Newtown] should describe any operations necessary to address any lead-based paint contamination that may exist … and/or address the removal of hazardous materials, which may need to occur prior to asbestos abatement.”

In a follow-up email, Mr Gerrish conveyed for his department additional comments: “The DPH restated the need to ensure that a sufficient number of samples were collected and appropriately analyzed to characterize each type of (homogeneous) plaster found in the building … The DPH also suggested that that the plans needed to be revised to address additional asbestos-containing building materials.”

His email also stressed a need to “coordinate asbestos abatement with the requirements of the DEP related to lead-based paint and the removal of hazardous materials that may exist within the building.”

Mr Bartley noted this week, “The Department of Public Health’s email concerns were addressed in a letter to them.”

Also noting the health department’s communication, Mr Bunnell wrote an email Monday explaining that he reviewed information about Greenwich House that he had on file regarding lead-based paint and “biomedical waste type bags that had been observed in the building,” relaying these and other concerns to Mr Bartley. His communication also had a brighter message: “However, at the same time, I expressed my opinion that it would be appropriate for asbestos and hazardous material removal to commence.” Again, as long as the health department gives the go-ahead on the asbestos issue, he said.

His message concluded, “I have a few concerns regarding the project and am reviewing the documentation to determine if I have any others regarding the proposed demolition work.”

Regarding requirements that all material be appropriately classified and characterized for disposal, Mr Bartley this week clarified in his email, “That is our intention …”

Outspoken critic of the Fairfield Hills plans and Greenwich House demolition, Independent Party of Newtown Chairman Bruce Walczak commented on the communications between the state and town departments and environmental consultants, saying, “Newtown is not cleared to tear down Greenwich House.” He also concludes, “Newtown would have been much further along if the proper documentation and surveys had been provided in a timely manner to the state. The DEP still has not received copies of the asbestos, lead paint, and hazardous materials surveys for this building and cannot proceed to tear down the building until these reports are received, reviewed and approved by DEP.

 “With little ownership of the project and a lack of overall planning, it is no wonder the project is behind schedule and falling further behind,” the IPN chairman said.

Expressing his suspicions, Mr Walczak also asked, “Do the voters believe the state would monitor this project so thoroughly if they felt Newtown was doing everything correctly?”

When the question was put to Mr Hurley, the public works director said simply that he preferred not to become involved with “political opinion making.”

Concentrating on Greenwich, Mr Hurley said, “The critical path was the testing protocol — [determining] what constituted asbestos-containing materials.” Filing documents had “nothing to do with that issue,” he said.

Establishing the protocol applies to every building at Fairfield Hills, and not just Greenwich alone, Mr Hurley noted. He explained that the protocol established between Mr Bartley, the state, and Newtown has a statewide reach. “Now it can apply elsewhere in Connecticut; so many campuses were built at the same time.” Southbury Training School, for example, could benefit.

The time taken to test and retest plaster samples, and establish asbestos content, rather than simply treat all materials as hazardous is another “huge” point, Mr Hurley explained. “It saves the town a staggering amount of money,” he said.

Noting that it does not “appear to have happened yet,” Mr Walczak said, “I am confident that when Newtown provides the state all required reports and performs the work according to approved procedures work will progress.”