Charah makes its case to Superior Court over Springdale boiler house implosion case

Lawyers representing the shuttered power plant in Springdale are making their case to a state appellate court, arguing that a county judge erred in siding with 16 borough residents and temporarily pausing a planned implosion of a boiler house at the site.

On Wednesday, attorneys representing remediation firm Charah Solutions — which owns a subsidiary that owns the former Cheswick Generating Station — filed a brief to the state’s Superior Court appealing a decision that granted a preliminary injunction of an implosion of the plant’s boiler house.

That decision, ruled on by Allegheny County Judge John T. McVay Jr., set procedures for the attorneys to follow before he would consider dissolving the injunction and letting the implosion proceed.

“If (residents) had filed administrative appeals in a timely fashion, the trial court should have referred the matters relating to implosion and air quality for appropriate administrative adjudication, rather than conduct a hearing for three months, issue an order that contains various requirements and then purportedly sends the (residents’ attorneys) to those same administrative agencies for their input,” Charah’s brief said.

John Kane, an attorney representing the residents, disagreed with the notion that the residents should have challenged the DEP’s blasting permit and the asbestos clearance by the Allegheny County Health Department.

“The residents of Springdale were in desperate straits after the June 2, 2023, implosion destroyed property, injured residents and left toxic contaminants in its wake,” Kane said. “Considering the absurd timeline chosen by the appellants for the boiler house implosion, the residents were left with only one avenue within which to seek relief — going to court and meeting the heavy burden that comes with the granting of an emergency motion for preliminary injunction.”

Charah also argued the county court erred because the mere risk of harm does not satisfy the “immediate and irreparable harm” standard required for an injunction to be granted. It referred to the court weighing evidence from a June implosion of two chimneys at the site which, the filing said, was “materially different” and “not informative” to the planned implosion of the boiler house.

On June 2, Charah, Grant Mackay Co. and Controlled Demolition Inc. — all defendants in the injunction suit — conducted the implosion of the two chimneys. One chimney failed to implode and break apart as intended, causing it to fall largely intact until it hit the ground. Impact caused an air blast from the end of the chimney, which, according to the residents who filed the injunction, resulted in dust and other debris leaving the site.

“The trial court repeatedly used the word ‘possible’ in describing the potential for irreparable harm related to exposure for the (residents),” the filing said. “It focused on the possibility of the implosion of the boiler house not ‘going as planned.’ The trial court relied on evidence that is speculative and is focused on the risk of irreparable harm, not on actual irreparable harm.”

Charah’s attorneys offered no additional comment on the briefing.

Kane said McVay was correct in determining the evidence was more than sufficient to halt the implosion of the boiler house “given the travesty that befell the community after the first blasting.”

“We feel confident that the Superior Court will determine that Judge McVay did not err in his decision, and that they will affirm his ruling, regardless of anything argued in (the) appellants’ briefs.”

Attorneys representing Grant Mackay also filed its brief on the appeal Wednesday.

According to the briefing schedule, Controlled Demolition Inc. has a June 7 due date to file its brief in the appeal, and responses from the residents’ attorneys are due later that month.