Attorneys representing the Springdale residents seeking to stop an implosion of the boiler house at the former Springdale power plant question why the property owner’s legal counsel wants to prohibit photographs taken during a site visit as evidence to be considered in the hearing.
Attorney John Kane, who represents the 16 Springdale residents, opposes property owner Charah Solutions’ motion to strike his team’s “last exhibit,” saying the move “fails to provide a rationale [sic] basis for the striking of all exhibits.”
The residents filed the injunction in September, and allege that the June 2 implosion of two smokestacks at the site caused harm to themselves and the community. They say an implosion of the boiler house would cause additional harm. Charah Solutions, demolition contractor Grant Mackay Co. and explosives subcontractor Controlled Demolition Inc. have contended throughout a monthslong hearing that implosion is the safest way to take down the boiler house.
Charah attorneys wrote in their latest filing that, on Nov. 15, after all exhibits had been reviewed before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge John T. McVay Jr., plaintiff’s attorney Janice Savinis presented a “forgotten” notebook into evidence containing hundreds of photographs from an Oct. 24 court-sponsored site visit to the former Cheswick Generating Station.
The defendants were not able to review the exhibit before Savinis handed it to the court to be “taken under advisement,” Charah attorneys wrote in their filing. The filing said the photographs “have the propensity to confuse and mislead” the judge by introducing images of neither the boiler house nor the administration building.
“Plaintiffs have much more faith in this Court than that expressed by the defendant,” Kane wrote in his filing. “Plaintiffs do not believe that these photographs could somehow be confusing or misleading. Defendant offers no argument, no examples, and no facts on which one could understand how photographs of a boiler house and an administrative building next to it could somehow be confusing.”
Kane’s filing said Charah’s motion to strike “appears anemic on substance.” He wrote that, pursuant to McVay’s court order, a complete set of photographs from the inspection were turned over to Charah within five days of the site inspection.
Defendants have represented that all asbestos had been removed from the boiler house, the filing said. But it pointed out the report of plaintiff’s expert witness Jon Pina, who noted that asbestos products, for example asbestos gaskets, were never abated.
The filing also questioned the defendant’s representation of the boiler house structure. It said that the structure is “so unstable” that “poor weather” could blow it over; however, buildings surrounding it have been demolished and the boiler house still remains.
“Defendants’ counsel attended the site inspection, standing within a few feet of the building which Defendants’ claim is so compromised that it could come down due to weather patterns,” the filing said.
David Raphael, an attorney representing Charah Solutions, said his firm will file a reply to the plaintiffs’ response to the motion to strike, and will let the filing speak for itself. The reply had not been filed as of Tuesday afternoon, according to online court dockets.
Charah joined Grant Mackay’s motion to dissolve the injunction. That motion, filed Thursday, claims the plaintiffs have not met essential requirements for the injunction to be granted.
