Plum Zoning Board rejects fracking injection well after lengthy battle; company plans to appeal

After a yearslong legal battle, the Plum Zoning Hearing Board rejected the application for a second injection well in the borough, which is an about-face from its initial decision.

Board member Mike Monfredi, who made the motion to reject the application, was joined by Andrew Novick and Linda Wilkins in a unanimous vote.

The decision comes after local environmental advocacy group Protect PT (Penn-Trafford) and the borough opposed Delmont-based gas company Penneco’s request for a zoning variance. The company wanted to convert a natural gas well into an injection well to dispose of waste fluids, known as brine, from oil and natural gas operations.

A similar well already exists at the 69-acre site along Old Leechburg Road.

In January 2022, the zoning hearing board gave its initial approval for the second injection well, saying it had no power to regulate such wells and that a decision to reject the plans would be overturned in court.

Though an Allegheny County judge agreed with the board, a state Commonwealth Court panel later ordered the board to reconsider the necessity of the expansion and to consider whether additional requirements protecting public health, safety and welfare apply.

The second well required the zoning variance because, according to Penneco, it is situated about 350 feet from a property line. Borough regulations require such a well to have a setback of at least 500 feet from the nearest property line. Like its existing counterpart, the injection well would have been 6 to 8 inches in diameter and run about 1,800 feet below the surface.

The debate over that variance led to numerous public hearing sessions over the past several months with testimony from environmental experts, Penneco officials and displeased neighbors.

That testimony and the legal arguments of Protect PT and the borough appear to have swayed the board’s opinion.

In a 30-page statement, the board said Penneco had failed to comply with several ordinances and had not provided sufficient evidence to grant the variance.

Among the factors considered, according to the statement, were the well’s effects on nearby structures, an increase in traffic near the site, the well’s potential to change the character of the neighborhood and its “significant” public health hazard.

“Penneco has failed to demonstrate that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community,” the statement concluded.

Protect PT staff attorney Dylan Basescu said he was “very pleased” with the result. The vote, he said, was a “credit to the community,” many of whom had expressed their reluctance to host the well during public comments at previous hearings.

In a statement, the group said it will continue working with the borough to “ensure the rights of every Pennsylvanian to clean air, soil and water are protected over private profit.”

Despite ample community attendance at previous meeting, the public was entirely absent from the vote. Only representatives from the parties involved were present.

After the vote, Penneco Chief Operating Officer Ben Wallace said he was confident the law would prevail, saying his company planned to appeal the decision.

To proceed, Penneco would have to file its appeal in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days.