Apollo borough is seeking, again, to sell its largest commercial site along Warren Avenue, 22 acres that includes about 4.5 acres off-limits for development where a former nuclear fuels plant once stood.
The parcels include land owned by Metals Services and cleaned up by Armstrong County Department of Economic Development, former railroad property and 4.5 acres that was originally a steel mill used by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. starting in 1957. NUMEC and its successors including Babcock & Wilcox produced nuclear fuel for U.S. Navy submarines, commercial nuclear power plants and other products. The plant was razed, then the federal government released the site for unrestricted use in 1997.
Claiming cancers and property damage from radioactive emissions from the Apollo plant, several hundred area residents sued the plant owners and settled for more than $80 million more than a decade ago.
For more than two decades, the empty plant site along the Kiski River and near major highways has largely sat idle, except for an access road, which serves as part of the Roaring Run recreational trail.
Apollo’s leadership has tried unsuccessfully several times to turn the parcel back to a productive use.
Recently, an unnamed developer approached the borough to use the site as an indoor recreational facility, according to the borough’s engineer, Rich Craft. He declined to release details on the proposed development.
“The problem is the state DEP classifies indoor recreational as residential and the site has only been cleaned up to non-residential standards,” he said.
Additionally, there are environmental covenants that Babcock & Wilcox issued with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental in 1997, which severely restricts the use of the 4.5 acre portion of the site. The ground is not to be disturbed, according to the covenants. Commercial, residential and recreational developments are prohibited.
Only a parking lot and bike trail are the acceptable.
DEP will need to approve new developments involving the 4.5 acres, said Neil Shaker, DEP’s director of communications.
Recently, Craft gave borough council a quote of about $10,000 to have someone look at environmental studies for the site to better understand what would need to be done to bring up at least a portion of the site to residential standards.
Council has not yet authorized the review of environmental studies, Craft said. Borough Council Chairman John Steele didn’t return calls for comment.
Mayor Cindee Virostek, an environmental activist who years ago pushed Babcock & Wilcox to clean up the site, doesn’t want the borough to pay any money on the property.
“The people of Apollo have paid enough,” Virostek said. “Anything that has to do with that site is not going to not be as easy as everyone thinks,” she said.
The potential developer should be responsible for any studies or cleanups, not the taxpayers, Virostek said.
Patty Ameno, of Hyde Park, an environmental activist who led the lawsuits against the nuclear plant owners, is skeptical of plans involving the public spending a lot of time on the site. “It could be lawsuit city,” she said of some of the potential land uses. Her family’s deli sat across the street from the plant when it operated. Ameno has supported the development of a museum at the former site honoring former nuclear workers and detailing the history of the nuclear era.
Beyond the environmental classification of the land, Craft said the stigma of the Apollo site with NUMEC’s waste dump in Parks Township has been a hurdle. “Media coverage has confused people outside of the area who confuse the Parks site with Apollo,” he said.
To market the property, the borough should concentrate on the larger portion, which has state clearances and tout positive attributes such its location close to major roads, the flatness of site and availability of tax incentives, said Michael Coonley, executive director of the Armstrong County Department of Economic Development.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won’t tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don’t include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don’t want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.