Springdale planners recommend renewing demolition permit for power plant

Springdale planners on Wednesday recommended the borough follow through with renewing a demolition permit for the former power plant.

The planning commission’s recommendation came after just more than an hour of public comment, which went back and forth on differing opinions on the permit, first issued in January of last year.

The commission had held off its decision in December .

Recommending approval allows continued progress of getting the former Cheswick Generating Station property cleaned up and repurposed, said planning commission chairwoman Amber Price.

Charah Solutions, property owner of the former power plant, and demolition contractor Grant Mackay Co., sought the permit’s renewal. It expires Jan. 17.

Springdale Council will consider renewal at its meeting Tuesday, according to Solicitor Chelsea Dice.

Plant manager Sam Miller said Charah acquired the property in April 2022 and has since decommissioned it. Charah is in the process of completing demolition and conducting environmental remediation and redevelopment work at the site, so it can be put into productive use.

Most of the site is being demolished by “conventional means,” like taking things apart, using excavators or pulling things down, Miller said.

Demolition contractors advised that three structures needed to be brought down with explosives, including the two towering chimneys felled June 2, and a boiler house that was scheduled to be imploded Sept. 22.

The boiler house hasn’t yet been imploded, however, due to litigation filed by 16 Springdale residents who say the chimney implosions caused damage to the community, and that the boiler house implosion would do the same.

Allegheny County Judge John T. McVay Jr. granted the preliminary injunction, and set guidelines to be followed by the litigants before he consider dissolving the injunction. Defendants in the case — Charah, Grant Mackay and explosives subcontractor Controlled Demolition, Inc. — have since filed notice of appeals to a higher court regarding the judge’s order.

Miller said the pending litigation is for implosion of the boiler house. It does not prohibit ongoing work at the site, he said.

“We are not regulating the implosion. That is by different entities,” Dice said. “So to tear down different walls and things like that; they won’t be able to do that, if you don’t issue a permit.”

The state Department of Environmental Protection regulates blasting.

How the permit was issued, and the permit itself, were also points of contention at Wednesday’s meeting.

Miller said Charah believes the demolition permit was properly and legally issued. Zoning officer Ed Crates said the permit satisfies requirements.

Other residents that spoke, and an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the injunction, challenged that.

Attorney John Kane, who represents the plaintiffs, said the permit was “defective.” He said the permit fee was supposed to go before the borough council for a vote.

He also suggested the borough was treating Charah differently than a resident seeking a permit.

“You should want to know how (Charah’s) doing that work. Because the fact that no one knew how they’re doing that work is why the June 2 implosion created such a disaster,” Kane said.

“You wouldn’t allow an individual in this community to start tearing down their home without giving you guys an idea of how they’re doing it, so you should require the same thing from the defendants.”

Others asked if the borough could impose additional conditions on the permit renewal, or issue a new permit with conditions.

Residents also spoke of the damage they incurred from the chimney implosion.

“This is almost like a sin, that we have to go through this,” said resident and injunction plaintiff Stacey Ansell.

But, according to Dice, the borough likely wouldn’t survive a court challenge if they imposed conditions. Dice said borough code doesn’t give the authority to put additional conditions on it.

She recommended the planning commission recommend approval of renewing the permit, to allow Charah to continue to remediate the site.

Kane disagreed with Dice.

“To say you can’t put a condition on (Charah) just isn’t true,” Kane said. “You do it all the time.

”If somebody sends in an application to you, to build an addition to their home, if it doesn’t meet the requirements, if it’s not safe, if it’s not, anything, you would say, ‘Hey, sorry, we’re not going to give you this permit. You’ve got to come back to us later to show us something else.’

”That’s what you need to do here.”