Ruling on Springdale boiler house doesn't mean structure is coming down soon, attorney says

A state Superior Court ruling seemingly clearing the way for the implosion of the former power plant in Springdale doesn’t necessarily mean the structure is coming down anytime soon.

John Kane, an attorney representing the 16 borough residents seeking to block the implosion at the former Cheswick Generating Station boiler house, said an application for reargument has been filed, asking the state Superior Court to either reverse its decision or allow the case to be reviewed by the full court.

A three-judge panel of the 14-member Superior Court on Tuesday reversed an Allegheny County judge’s decision granting an injunction for the structure’s demolition. The Superior Court ruling says residents should have challenged the blasting permits through the state Department of Environmental Protection or the Allegheny County Health Department before asking the courts to intervene.

If the Superior Court declines the application for reargument, Kane said, they will appeal to the state’s Supreme Court.

Kane said the Superior Court didn’t say the boiler house may be imploded, but rather “punted on the issue of whether it was OK to implode the boiler house.”

“The Superior Court says that we should have appealed the granting of the blasting permit to the (DEP’s) Environmental Hearing Board, rather than the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. We disagree with that decision, and we will continue to seek relief.”

The Superior Court ruling says the county court lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue because residents didn’t first exhaust administrative remedies, but did not go as far as approving the implosion of the boiler house.

Kane said, if and when property owner Charah Solutions files a new blasting permit, which is required by law, they will appeal that permit to the Environmental Hearing Board, “as well as explore all other options.”

A Charah official could not be reached Wednesday.

When the DEP granted the last blasting permit, Kane said, it considered that an office building was in place and was situated as a block between the boiler house and residences on Porter Street.

“However, while the case was on appeal, the defendants removed that blocker-building,” Kane said. “Thus, whether the DEP would grant a permit without a structure between the imploding boiler house and the nearby homes is now an open question since a factor that the DEP weighed in (the) defendants’ favor is now no longer present.”