A notebook that contains images of the former Springdale power plant is admissible as part of a case opponents of a planned implosion of the plant’s boiler house filed in Allegheny County Court, a judge ruled Tuesday.
Allegheny County Judge John T. McVay Jr. denied the motion from Charah Solutions, the power plant’s property owner and defendant in the case, to exclude a so-called forgotten notebook of pictures taken during a site visit from the case.
The notebook was the last exhibit presented by attorneys representing the borough residents seeking to block an implosion of the boiler house.
The residents filed the injunction in September and allege that the June 2 smokestack implosion at the site caused harm to themselves and the community. They’ve argued an implosion of the boiler house would cause additional harm.
Throughout the monthslong proceeding in McVay’s court, Charah, demolition contractor Grant Mackay Co. and explosives subcontractor Controlled Demolition Inc. have said that implosion is the safest way to take down the boiler house.
In October, attorneys and experts conducted a site visit of the property.
But the plaintiff’s images of the site visit came into question Nov. 15. Charah’s attorneys say that as attorneys had reviewed all exhibits, Janice Savinis, whose firm, Savinis, Kane and Gallucci, represents the residents, offered into evidence the “forgotten” notebook containing images taken from the site visit. Savinis handed it to the court to be “taken under advisement.”
Charah expressed concerns that the images had “the propensity to confuse and mislead” McVay by introducing images of neither the boiler house nor the administration building. The photographs were also never offered, or authenticated, through a witness during the trial.
The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that Charah’s opposition failed to provide a rational basis to throw out the exhibit.
Attorneys for the plaintiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment on McVay’s decision.
“We will continue to allow our motion to strike to speak for itself,” said Dave Raphael, an attorney representing Charah.
McVay’s order only referenced the plaintiff’s response, filed by attorney John Kane.
In his response, Kane wrote that Charah’s attorneys were present, and consented to, the on-site inspection. He wrote that Charah was aware the photographs were taken at the site inspection, and to imply anything otherwise “would not only be a waste of judicial resources, but also more than a little disingenuous.”
The parties have until Friday to submit post-hearing briefings.
Grant Mackay Co. and Charah previously filed a motion to throw out the injunction, claiming the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the injunction was necessary.
