Table of Contents:

General Site Information

History of the Site

Current Status of the Site

Background on the Company Galvtech

Costs and Funding for Conversion of the Site

Environmental Information on the Site

[Table of Contents]

The "Hays" site is a former ammunition plant located 300 Mifflin Road in the Hays section of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (See Figures B-1 and B-2, Appendix B). The property is located in the Monongahela River drainage basin, about 1,800 feet south of the river's edge. The area around the site is hilly and slopes towards the river. The site is bordered by Mifflin Road to the west and the CSX Transportation tracks (formerly B&O Railroad) to the east and south. Also, the site abuts the property and building owned by the Park Corporation to the north.

The site which is a total of 8-acres in size (See Figure C-2, Appendix C) includes a large industrial building and 3 Office buildings (total of 180,00 - 240,000 square feet of building space). The Hays site property is registered as Lot 56 in Block 91J by the City of Pittsburgh. (KSBH, 1992)

The property of the Hays site is divided into three development zones (See Figure C-3, Appendix C) and jurisdiction of the site is split between the City of Pittsburgh and the Borough of West Homestead. (KSBH, 1992) As shown in Table 2.1, the zoning indicated in Figure C-3 (Appendix C) includes the several designations.

Table 2.1: Descriptions of Zoning Designations for the Hays Site

The Hays site is currently owned by the Pittsburgh Economic Industrial Development Corporation (PEIDC) which is part of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of Pittsburgh.

[Table of Contents]

The manufacturing plant located on the Hays site was built in 1942 by the U.S. Navy and operated first by its builders, the Mesta Machine Company, to make gun forgings. Later, Carnegie-Illinois Steel Company was contracted to operate the plant and manufacture projectiles (16-inch) for World War II. The plant was modified in 1955 before the Korean War in order to produce several sizes of projectiles and operated by Mullins Manufacturing Company of Salem, Ohio. In 1966, ownership of the plant was transferred to the United States Amy. Levinson Steel Company was contracted by the Army to manufacture projectile casings during the Vietnam War, in the plant's most active period. (Carlisle, 1995) Overall, during the time period from World War II through the Vietnam War, the plant employed more than a thousand people and produced 250,000 howitzer shells a month. (McKay, 1993)

In 1971, following the Vietnam War, the plant was placed on standby status. From 1971 to 1988 a skeleton crew of Army subcontractors kept the plant clean and functional in case the military decided to resume production (McKay, 1993) However, no manufacturing activity had occurred at the site since 1970, when the last shells were produced. (Carlisle, 1995) In 1988, the plant was taken off standby status by the Army for disposition.

In 1993, the Army donated the site to the Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh for $1. (Massey, 1995) The 31st Ward Citizens Council was given permission to manage the site for the URA until development occurred. (McKay, 1993) The Steel Valley Authority (SVA) originally looked at the building in 1988 in an attempt to devise industrial uses for it but found a surplus of such space exists.

In 1991, the movie industry became interested in the site. (Sheehan, 1992) At this time, the URA's redevelopment efforts were focused on the film-making industry, but the URA considered pursuing light industrial development if these efforts proved to be impractical. (Massey, 1995) In addition to the URA and the Film Office, the redevelopment committee consisted of the Steel Valley Authority, the 31st Ward Citizen's Council and U.S. Rep. William Coyne (Pittsburgh). (Sheehan, 1992) In early 1992, the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority invited ten Pittsburgh architectural and engineering firms to submit proposals for converting the plant into a motion-picture soundstage. (Sheehan, 1992) The purpose of the architectural study is to determine the cost and feasibility of converting the plant into a soundstage as well as the cost of operating the facility, according to Robert Curran, director of the Pittsburgh Film Office. (Sheehan, 1992) The development of a permanent soundstage was perceived to help a growing film industry in Pittsburgh. (Sheehan, 1992) However, when no viable developer stepped forward, the URA dropped that idea and began looking for other redevelopment alternatives for the site. (Belko, 1995)

In early 1995, the URA had plans to sell the site to By-Products Industries Inc. (BPI), a mineral processing firm with an office in Wilkinsburg and a plant in McKees Rocks, for industrial recycling. BPI's plan was to use the 180,000 square foot building and lease part of the property to Gottlieb Incorporated, which used a Neville Island site to melt and recycle aluminum products and other metals. The partners in the bid claimed that the new development would create 75 new jobs at the site. (Rotstein, 1995) However, this plan drew opposition from the Hays community because residents were concerned that the development would increase noise, traffic, odors, and dust in the area. (Belko, 1995)

In September of 1995, it was announced that the Hays site would be leased by GalvTech from the Pittsburgh Economic Industrial Development Corporation (PEIDC) which is part of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). (Belko, 1995) Aside from the various plans for development as discussed previously, the plant was only used on occasion as storage for movie props after being acquired by the URA in 1993. (Belko, 1995)

[Table of Contents]

In September of 1995, it was announced that the former ammunition plant would be leased by GalvTech from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) of Pittsburgh. In January of 1996, responsibility for the property was transferred to the Pittsburgh Economic and Industrial Development Corporation (PEIDC) which is part of the URA. (Belko, 1995) GalvTech plans to convert the facility into a hot-dip galvanizing line to process and coat with corrosion-resistant zinc rolled steel coils brought in from other facilities. According to company officials, production will begin at the facility in late 1996. (Carlisle, 1995) The conversion of the plant is expected to create 75 new jobs according to Watts Humphrey, GalvTech chairman. (Belko, 1995) GalvTech also considered sites in eastern Ohio and northern West Virginia as well as the former USX National Works in McKeesport for the new plant.

[Table of Contents]

GalvTech is the third metal processing company formed by the five principal partners of Metaltech and Nextech, two local Pittsburgh firms in the last 11 years. (Carlisle, 1995) The principal partners include Watts Humphrey, Edwin Gott, Wilson Parmerie, Tom Grudovich and Bob Riordan. (Belko, 1995) Metaltech, formed in 1984, is located on Second Avenue at the Pittsburgh Technology Center at the former Jones and Laughlin (J&L) Steel mill site, and Nextech, formed in 1990, is located in East Pittsburgh (Turtle Creek). Both plants provide protective zinc coating to steel. Metaltech employs 90 and Nextech employs 60 people. According to Edwin H. Gott Jr., one of GalvTech's partners, in 1994 Metaltech shipped 294,000 tons of the "rust-resistant steel" last year and Nextech, which coats a lighter-gauge sheet, shipped 136,000 tons. (Boselovic, 1995)

[Table of Contents]

Financial support received from the state and local level was critical to the redevelopment of the Hays site. (Carlisle, 1995) A total of $36.5 million ($28.5 million in private financing and $8 million in public funding) will be invested in renovations to the building, infrastructure improvements, and equipment (machinery) purchases. (Belko, 1995)

The URA, through some of its programs, will provide close to $5 million to the project. This funding includes a $1.95 million loan from the Pittsburgh Development Fund and nearly $3 million in URA loans. (Belko, 1995) The state has committed $2 million in financial assistance to GalvTech, which includes $1.25 million from the Infrastructure Development Program for public and private infrastructure improvements on abandoned industrial sites which consists of a $750,000 grant for improvement of local roads (Public) and a $500,000 loan for improvement of rail access to the site (Private). GalvTech will also receive $500,000 from the state for new equipment and another $250,000 to offset the cost of worker training.

Figures 3.1 through 3.3 summarize the sources of funding and expenditures associated with the redevelopment of the Hays site. Figure 3.1 illustrates the major categories of expenditures, Figures 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate the various sources of funding for the redevelopment of the Hays site. Table 3.1 is a detailed listing of the various sources and amounts of funding received.

Figure 3.1: Expenditures For Hays Site Redevelopment

Figure 3.2: Sources of Funding For Hays Site Redevelopment

Figure 3.3: Sources of Funding (Breakdown)

Table 3.3: Listing of Project Funding Sources and Uses

[Table of Contents]

Before the Army could turn over the Hays site to the URA, it was required to complete an environmental study, which initially the military was not willing to fund. Pennsylvania congressmen, including Representative William Coyne (Oakland) worked to include $300,000 to $500,000 in the 1990 House defense spending bill for the study. The Senate did not put the money in its version of the Federal Bill, leaving the matter to be settled by a joint conference committee.

The study was to determine, in part, how chemical solvents and other materials were disposed of at the plant to assess the existence of potential environmental hazards. The Environmental Baseline Study for the site was prepared by Weston and Baker Environmental, Incorporated in April, 1991 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This assessment found total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic carbons (VOCs), metals, and polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), and asbestos insulation in the soil (Weston and Baker Environmental Inc., 1991). This contamination was a result of the industrial processes used during the operation of the plant. Table 2.2 contains a summary of the primary contaminants at the site determined through the Environmental Baseline Study.

Table 2.2: Summary of Contaminants at the Hays Site (Weston and Baker Environmental Inc., 1991)

Based on applicable cleanup standards, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) determined that only the petroleum hydrocarbons and PCBs would require remediation. The concentrations of metals and VOCs in the soil at the Hays site were at acceptable levels. Additionally, the groundwater at the site was found to be in compliance with all applicable standards. (Cohen, 1996)

The Army proceeded to clean the site of asbestos, underground storage tanks and other contaminants with funds made available in the Federal Bill passed at the request of Representative Coyne. The Bill directed the property be turned over to the city once it was certified as clean. (Massey, 1995)

Web Pages for the Hays Site Created By: J.P. Barton,Carnegie Mellon University.
Questions or Comments: Send E-mail to: dlange@cmu.edu
Last Updated: August 20, 1999