Part of Old Leechburg Road in Plum is on the mend.

Crews are repaving sections of the the hilly, two-lane road between Greensburg Road and gas company Penneco’s embattled fracking injection well.

The company, which injects fracking waste fluids deep underground at its hilltop facility, maintains the section of Old Leechburg Road under an agreement with PennDOT, according to Chief Operating Officer Ben Wallace.

“It’s 100% paid for by us,” Wallace said.

That cost amounts to about $250,000, he said.

The work, he said, will involve about 800 feet of lane repaving and extensive repairs on the road’s shoulders. Wallace said he expects it to wrap up within the next few days.

Old Leechburg Road sees heavy traffic from trucks carrying waste fluids — known as brine — to Penneco’s facility. Since it began injecting in 2017, Wallace said, the company has accepted about 40,000 loads.

The road work was not prompted by any borough complaints or prodding from PennDOT, Wallace said.

PennDOT spokeswoman Nicole Haney said the repairs would address any pavement concerns “caused by (Penneco) hauling.”

“We just felt it was at a point that it needed an overhaul,” Wallace said.

Penneco remains embroiled in a court battle with Plum and local environmental group Protect PT over its intention to build a second injection well at its facility.

In 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.

An Allegheny County judge agreed with the ruling.

But 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 are needed.

The second well required the zoning variance because it’s 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.

But in an about-face last summer, the board said Penneco had failed to comply with several ordinances and had not provided sufficient evidence to grant the variance.

The company appealed in Allegheny County Court, where the case remains.