Attorneys for Springdale residents seek reargument over boiler house ruling

Attorneys representing 16 Springdale residents seeking to block an implosion of the former power plant’s boiler house say they weren’t required to go through other outlets to challenge the demolition and permitting, contrary to a recent state Superior Court decision that ruled they should have.

That’s part of the argument submitted by attorney John Kane, in the residents’ plight against the companies that had planned a September 2023 implosion of the boiler house, to reargue the case before a full panel of Superior Court judges.

A panel of three state Superior Court judges last month reversed a decision from an Allegheny County judge who had granted a preliminary injunction, which had paused the boiler house’s demolition.

The appellate court ruled the Alle­gheny County judge should not have intervened and the residents should have gone through channels at the state Department of Environmental Protection or the Allegheny County Health Department. It also noted the residents did not appeal Springdale Borough’s issuance of a demolition permit or challenge an alleged violation of the state Sunshine Act.

In his filing, Kane said the Superior Court disregarded sworn testimony from the DEP and county health department officials and substituted their own judgment over those agencies’ responsibilities.

Kane also argued the residents only discovered the alleged Sunshine Act violation during the trial, when two Springdale Council members testified they were unaware of the demolition permit being granted.

The residents sought relief legally because “no adequate administrative remedy exists in this situation,” Kane wrote.

He said it would have been practically impossible for a government agency to consider an appeal on the blasting permit in the time allotted because the companies were “literally racing to implode the boiler house as fast as was humanly possible, all in an effort to prevent anyone from Springdale from being able to stop them.”

Charah’s argument

Attorneys representing Charah, which owns the company that owns the former power plant property, said in a Dec. 2 filing that the residents aren’t entitled to reargument because their most recent claim “reasserts and repackages arguments already raised, considered and decided by the Superior Court panel.”

“The panel properly considered the law and the facts in concluding that the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because the Plaintiffs/Appellees failed to exhaust adequate administrative remedies,” wrote Charah’s attorney, Laura Veith.

She wrote the Superior Court was correct in ruling that the residents should have pursued relief from the Environmental Hearing Board for the blasting permit.

“Plaintiffs speculate that the (Environmental Hearing Board) could not have acted in a timely manner; however, the Plaintiffs also acknowledge that the (Environmental Hearing Board) convenes within two weeks of receiving an appeal and obviously earlier than that if necessary,” Veith wrote.

“Such a process would certainly have concluded more expeditiously, rather than the proceeding that spanned four months before the trial court.”