ShareThis Page

Plum injection well project will get EPA permit

Dillon Carr
| Monday, March 5, 2018, 7:25 p.m.
The Plum  administrtion building
Michael DiVittorio
The Plum administrtion building

The Environmental Protection Agency has granted a permit for a company to drill an injection well in Plum.

The permit for Penneco Environmental Solutions comes despite a public hearing in July that drew 200 people, many of whom spoke against allowing development of the injection well used for disposing wastewater generated by hydraulic fracturing. In addition, the EPA received around 400 complaints about the proposed well from 120 people during a public comment period which ended in August.

The Delmont-based company's injection well will dispose of fracking water and other fluids from oil and gas drilling operations at a site off Old Leechburg Road near the border with Murrysville and Upper Burrell.

Fracking is a technique to extract oil and gas from rock by injecting high-pressure mixtures of water, sand or gravel and chemicals.

Many concerns residents expressed are not within the EPA's power to regulate, said the agency's response to comments. Among those were increased truck traffic and noise, damage to roads, diminished property values and runoff into nearby streams and rivers.

Those are “commonly addressed by state and local regulations,” the federal agency said.

Penneco still needs to obtain permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection.

DEP spokeswoman Lauren Fraley said the agency has not received Penneco's injection well application. She said the DEP will announce details about a public hearing on the injection well once the company applies for the permit.

Penneco Chief Operating Officer Ben Wallace said he is excited to move forward with the project.

“Candidly, it's a safe project. It's the safest way to dispose of fluids — we're putting them back where they came from,” Wallace said.

Disposal injection wells are used in the oil and gas industry to permanently get rid of water and brine, both by-products of Marcellus shale drilling, according to the DEP.

Dave Vento, a former Plum councilman who opposed the injection well and Marcellus shale drilling, was upset the company had been granted a permit.

“I would not want to see it in our community. It affects many areas and the water systems throughout. I'm very worried about our community,” Vento said. “I don't know what we can do to stop it.”

Matt Kelso, a Plum resident and manager of data and technology for FracTracker Alliance, said residents were united in their opposition to the injection well. FracTracker Alliance is a nonprofit that keeps watch over oil and gas development across the world.

“The EPA's decision is frustrating,” Kelso said. “Over 200 people packed the community center, and of the dozens of people who spoke, not a single person was in favor of disposing of oil and gas wastewater here. ... It really doesn't feel like the will of the people matters much right now.”

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-871-2325, or via Twitter @dillonswriting.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me