Plum’s zoning hearing board says it will have a final decision on the development of a second injection well along Old Leechburg Road by June.
The board heard testimony from three people Monday night during the third in a series of hearings.
Local environmental advocacy group Protect PT (Penn-Trafford) and the borough oppose Delmont-based gas company Penneco’s request for a zoning variance so it can 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.
In January 2022, the zoning hearing board approved the second injection well, saying it had no power to regulate such wells and a decision to reject the plans would be overturned in court.
Though and 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 requires a 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 be 6-8 inches in diameter and run about 1,800 feet below the surface.
During the meeting Monday, the borough called land surveyor Don Housley to testify, which he did for nearly 90 minutes . The surveyor examined several sections of the ordinance and offered maps of the site.
Around 20 members of the public showed up for the lengthy hearing, but, by the end, less than five remained.
One of the few who remained was Marcia Smolenski, whose home is one of the properties that abuts the proposed injection site. Speaking to the board, she said she had previously drank contaminated water, and that the proposed injection well was “scaring her to death.”
“This is impacting my life like you wouldn’t believe,” she said. “I have grandkids who come to my house. I don’t want them to drink my water. This is something that I worry about on a daily basis.”
The resident advised those representing Penneco to place the injection well in their own backyard.
Called by Protect PT, Marc Glass took the stand as a remediation specialist from West Virginia-based consulting firm Downstream Strategies.
Though Amanda Cashman, a lawyer representing Penneco, questioned Glass’ expertise, the consultant offered testimony about potential risks at the site that could result from the new injection well, such as emissions and potential groundwater contamination.
“There are emissions that are known. There’s thousands of pounds of emissions per year that are volatile. So, if you think about that as gases, that’s a lot,” he said.
Specifically, Glass expressed concerns that odors could spread to nearby houses in addition to odorless radon gas — a carcinogen — resulting from decayed radium sometimes found in well brine.
As a rebuttal, Cashman called Penneco Chief Operating Officer Ben Wallace to the stand, who refuted some of the assertions surrounding the maps presented by Housley and claims made by Glass.
Throughout his testimony, he asserted that the whole conversion operation was fairly “trivial,” requiring minimal time and no staging on public roads.
“It’s a very simple job,” Wallace said. “It will take two to three days with a few pieces of machinery that’s all mobile, and it’s not very significant.”
During previous sessions, neighbors had expressed concerns about potential chemical and noise pollution from increased truck traffic in the area, though a Penneco consultant refuted claims of elevated noise.
The company has said having a second injection well online would increase capacity of operations at the site by 50%, from 30 to 45 loads of brine per day.
Finished with testimony, board Solicitor Gavin Robb said the parties would have until May 9 to submit proposed findings, essentially their legal argument for how the board ought to vote.
Following that, Robb said the board would likely take its final public vote on the matter by June 11.