Plum Borough Rejects Fracking Waste Injection Well After Public Pushback

A Local Win for Health and Safety in Plum Borough

After years of organizing, advocacy, and persistence, residents of Plum Borough, Pennsylvania, reached a major milestone on June 11, 2025. The local zoning hearing board voted unanimously to reject Penneco Environmental Solutions’ application to construct a second fracking waste injection well, just hundreds of feet from homes and public spaces.

The decision followed years of community pushback and legal appeals. It reflects not only the power of local activism but also the importance of data, mapping, and expert testimony in challenging extractive industry claims. Environmental groups such as Protect PT played a leading role in mobilizing public opposition, while FracTracker Alliance provided behind-the-scenes support with data analysis, geographic visualization, and technical review.

Mapping the Threat of Injection Wells

One of the key contributors to this win was Matt Kelso, FracTracker’s Manager of Data and Technology, and a longtime resident of Plum. His dual role as a community member and data expert made him an especially effective advocate.

Kelso worked closely with Protect PT to examine Penneco’s filings and identify discrepancies in their application. He used mapping tools to visualize the proposed well’s location and translated technical documents into accessible language that could be used in public hearings. These maps and analyses illustrated just how close the well would sit to homes, parks, and other public areas, helping residents and decision-makers see the risks more clearly.

When Penneco insisted the project met safety standards, Kelso testified before the zoning board with maps and data in hand, challenging the company’s assertions. He also conducted a review of Penneco’s compliance history across the region, identifying a pattern of violations and lapses that raised serious concerns about the company’s ability to operate responsibly.

“This outcome didn’t come easily,” Kelso said. “It shows that when a community unites and speaks with one voice, it can stand up to special interests and win.”

What Was at Risk: 70,000 Gallons a Day

The proposed injection well would have allowed Penneco to dispose of up to 70,000 gallons of toxic fracking wastewater each day. That waste—containing a mix of chemicals, radioactive materials, and heavy metals—would have been pumped deep underground just 350 feet from the nearest property line. This violated local zoning ordinances, which require a minimum setback of 500 feet.

The project also posed several other risks. Increased truck traffic through residential neighborhoods would have brought more noise, diesel emissions, and potential safety hazards. The site was already home to one existing injection well, and residents feared the cumulative impacts of a second facility.

Beyond the visible disruptions, the deeper concern was environmental and public health harm: potential groundwater contamination, long-term damage to air quality, and the erosion of the community’s livability. Residents argued that the project didn’t belong in a residential area, especially one already grappling with environmental burdens.

Legal Challenges and a Turning Point

The zoning board originally approved Penneco’s request in 2022, stating at the time that it lacked legal authority to deny the application. That decision was challenged by Protect PT and the Plum Borough Council, but was upheld in Allegheny County Court. The case then went to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court, which reversed the ruling.

The appeals court determined that the zoning board had failed to properly evaluate whether the proposal met the legal standard of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. This decision marked a turning point: it established that the board did, in fact, have both the authority and the responsibility to assess these broader impacts.

When the case was remanded to the zoning board for reconsideration, the board took a closer look. After reviewing testimony, evidence, and public input, it issued a 30-page decision denying Penneco’s application.

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

Why This Win Matters

This decision wasn’t just a bureaucratic reversal: it was a clear example of what happens when science, data, and community advocacy come together. In Plum, residents turned concern into action. Environmental advocates turned evidence into testimony. And with the support of technical partners like FracTracker, they built a case strong enough to stand up in court and at the zoning board.

The outcome highlights several broader lessons:

• Communities can successfully challenge industrial development when equipped with accurate, accessible information.
  
• Data and mapping can be powerful tools for uncovering risks and holding companies accountable.
  
• Environmental justice depends on both grassroots resistance and technical expertise.
  

This ruling also provides a potential model for other communities facing similar proposals across Pennsylvania and beyond. It shows that local zoning and public health standards can serve as real tools to protect residents when they’re enforced.

What Comes Next

Although this case marks a critical win, the underlying threats remain. The regulatory gaps that allowed Penneco to move forward in the first place, such as inadequate oversight, uneven enforcement, and limited public access to industry data, still exist in many regions.

FracTracker Alliance will continue to work with Protect PT and Plum residents to monitor conditions at the site, document environmental risks, and develop tools to help communities stay informed and prepared. That includes maintaining public maps of Class II injection wells, offering support for data collection, and contributing technical insight to legal and policy efforts.