Progress Continues, Slowly, At Bridgeport Hall

By Kendra Bobowick

“I request that you continue to refrain from commencing work at Bridgeport Hall,” wrote Ross Bunnell, sanitary engineer with the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in a letter sent to the first selectman on November 24. He did not mean all of the work, however.

Putting the remark in context, Highway Department head Fred Hurley said, “A lot of people seize on that one paragraph.” To clarify, he said, “[Mr Bunnell] hasn’t said we can’t do any work on site.” Other work “is going forward.” Parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and electrical measurements and layouts are in swing, “but nothing that would rip apart ceilings or walls,” Mr Hurley said. Specifically, Mr Bunnell said he is looking for clarification on prior paperwork he received from the town.

“I don’t think that’s unreasonable,” Mr Hurley said. “It’s paperwork.” Most likely, Russell W. Bartley off R.W. Bartley & Associates “will send full responses,” as soon as possible.

Will this be an easy resolution?

Mr Bunnell explained, “I posed seven questions and some could be addressed potentially with additional documentation.” Also, some questions may prompt further material removal work. So far, he has not found anything causing suspicion regarding remediation. “I have not seen anything that indicates to me that things have been disposed of improperly.”

The state and the town are “making progress,” slowly, toward remaining work at Bridgeport Hall. “If my questions are answered, they’re good to go,” Mr Bunnell said. Relieved, Mr Hurley explained, “I think he’s trying to close the book.” While refraining from work in the walls or ceiling, other work schedules have been rearranged to compensate for the delay. “Work that would have been done later is being done now,” he said. Crews will soon encounter delays without the state’s sign off, however. “It has caused some problems,” Mr Hurley said. Electrical contractors, for example, have been waiting to get started.

Seven Questions Remain

In recent interviews Mr Bunnell had hinted that the November 24 letter was on its way. As promised, it arrived Thanksgiving week — a continuation of an ongoing inquiry from the DEP and state Department of Public Health that began in September. At that time, Mr Hurley and Mr Bunnell mutually felt that the state needed to do its due diligence after the state received anonymous calls questioning the Fairfield Hills site work. Following up on the flurry of data he received after the September inquiry, Mr Bunnell had seven last questions. Mr Hurley said this week, “[Mr Bunnell] has asked for clarification on these items.”

Turning his attention to “people with issues” with Fairfield Hills, Mr Hurley said once the state gives its nod, “There is nothing more to be said.”

With Bridgeport Hall reviews bumped to the head of the line, the letter states that the rest of the paperwork is still under consideration. “Although we have reviewed much of this information [pertaining to past and current projects at Fairfield Hills], we have not yet completed reviewing all of it, and cannot provide you with a comprehensive response at this time.”

Mr Hurley had stressed the need to prioritize Bridgeport Hall reviews, however. Mr Bunnell complied. In his letter he explained, “As we understand it, the commencement of work in that building is on hold…I am happy to report that the review of information relating to Bridgeport Hall is now complete.”

Work can begin as soon as the state has its answers. The first question pertains to a “cooler in the northeast wing. Was this unit a drinking water cooler or some other type of device?” the letter asks.

Question two asks about information that “appears to document the proper disposal of various materials from Bridgeport Hall, including asbestos-containing materials, oil and debris, fluorescent lamps … If [items] still remain, are they in areas that will be impacted by the planned renovation work?

“Also … latex paint containers, smoke detectors and Freon … do not appear to be accounted for in the close out documentation. Have these materials been removed and properly disposed of, and if not, what is your schedule for doing so?”

Third, the letter asks about lead in certain locations, and how certain determinations were made regarding its remediation. “Please provide documentation of any such analyses.” Regarding lead detection in windows, the letter asks, “If these windows have already been removed and disposed of, please advise …”

The fourth question asks for documentation about the removal of hydraulic oil from elevators.

Number five inquires about removal of PA systems, temperature control systems, and more, stating, “Although many elements of these systems may consist merely of ordinary solid waste or scrap metal, they could also include hazardous materials … Have these systems been removed yet?” The letter requests documentation.

Six asks about “the possibility that lead-contaminated wastewaters and/or filters may have been generated in work that has already occurred … If so, what was the disposition of these materials?”

The final question seeks to confirm documentation concerning testing for asbestos performed on the two small wings removed from Bridgeport Hall, along with documentation of the removal and disposal of any such materials.