Greene County family's lawsuit aims to quiet energy company
A Greene County couple and their daughter claim in a lawsuit moved to federal court on Friday that Energy Corp. of America has ignored the terms of a contract allowing the company to build a compressor station on their Greene Township property.
Louis and Bessie Vecchio of Dunkard Township and Lisa Vecchio of Greene Township say the 2009 contract allows the Denver-based company to install only one compressor inside a soundproof building, but the company has installed five compressors, and only two of them are inside the structure.
The company also used more land than agreed to in the contract, under which it leases the property for $4,500 per year for 50 years, the lawsuit states.
"The installation and continuous operation of the four additional compressors on the Vecchio Tract has created constant extremely loud noise, 24 hours a day, seven days a week," according to the lawsuit.
David McGowan, one of the Vecchios' attorneys, said the company has a pending application with the Environmental Protection Agency to put up to eight compressors at the site.
The contract with the Vecchios states that the company "shall" enclose the compressor station inside a building with soundproofing, so that's not an optional requirement, McGowan said.
" 'Shall' is a mandatory word," he said.
The Vecchios' lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the company to remove all but one of the compressors and to maintain it in a soundproof structure, he said.
Nicolle Bagnell, one of the lawyers representing the company, referred all questions to a company representative, who could not be reached for comment. The company asked the federal court to take the case because the defendant and plaintiffs live in different states.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
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 â 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.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.