Sep 28, 2023 By Mike Jones staff Writer mjones@observer-Reporter.Com 4 min read

The state Public Utility Commission is seeking public comment on a proposed settlement that would require a natural gas pipeline operator to pay a $100,000 civil penalty for an explosion that destroyed a Greene County house and severely burned one of the residents.

The explosion happened in the early hours of April 9, 2020, along a service line from Mifflin Energy Corp.’s pipeline network connected to the Shoup No. 4 well in Washington Township, in which an offshoot “farm tap” fed natural gas to two nearby properties.

A house at 134 Water Dam Road was destroyed and one of the homeowners suffered second-degree burns on her arms from the explosion and subsequent fire. The woman, who was not identified by authorities at the time of the explosion nor in the PUC’s proposed settlement, was driven to a hospital in Morgantown, W.Va., and later taken by ambulance to the burn unit at West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh for treatment. A man living at the residence was not seriously injured.

The PUC investigated the incident over the past three years and claimed Mifflin Energy was responsible for the service line that exploded, while the company argued that another property owner in the area was to blame for the connection issues.

According to the proposed settlement, the property owners at 169 Water Dam Road requested permission from Mifflin Energy to relocate the gas line’s meter and pressure regulator in March 2020. Mifflin granted the request but did not require a pressure test and doesn’t have a written record of the changes, according to the PUC. Investigators suspect the cause of the explosion was due to a gas leak that occurred in the service line going to that property, which in turn destroyed the neighboring house at 134 Water Dam Road.

In addition, investigators learned while reviewing the incident that Mifflin had not registered its pipeline facilities with the PUC or the U.S Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Administration. PUC investigators argued that the section of the pipeline that failed was Mifflin’s responsibility due to the relocation of the meter and regulator. The investigators also said that Mifflin committed multiple violations of state and federal pipeline safety regulations.

The company responded in legal arguments that the property owner’s changes to the regulator and meter caused the explosion and that state and federal regulators did not have jurisdiction over the matter because of where in the pipeline the problem occurred.

In response, the PUC’s investigative branch and Mifflin entered into joint proposed settlement in June, which the five-member PUC board voted unanimously on Sept. 21 to publish and seek public input before deciding later whether to approve the agreement.

Mifflin Energy Corp. has since sold its operational assets to Mifflin Energy Resources LLC, which is not affiliated with its predecessor and does not appear to be subject to the PUC settlement. However, that seems to have complicated the proposed settlement, and PUC board Chairman Stephen DeFrank acknowledged there could be some confusion over the similar names, so the public comment period will be critical in moving forward with the settlement.

“A better understanding of this issue of who is responsible for any remedial measures is necessary before determining whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest and should be approved. This is particularly true given the potential devastation associated with every natural gas explosion,” DeFrank wrote in his statement about the vote. “We are fortunate that this incident did not cause any fatalities. However, we must ensure that we are doing everything possible to prevent such incidents from ever occurring, regardless of who is the current owner of specific facilities.”

While it appears that Mifflin Energy Corp. would be responsible for paying the $100,000 penalty since it owned the equipment at the time of the explosion, PUC Vice Chairwoman Kimberly Barrow said the settlement is important so safety enhancements are made by the new company, Mifflin Energy Resources LLC, with any plans moving forward.

“Whoever owns the facilities in this case, the (PUC) is still obligated to ensure the facilities are safely managed,” Barrow wrote in her statement. “Not only must the facilities at issue be reviewed to ensure safe service, but the new owners should also conduct a comprehensive review of their facilities to prevent further dangerous conditions.”

Details of the PUC’s proposed settlement will be advertised in the upcoming Pennsylvania Bulletin asking for public comments from interested parties. Those who would like to comment will have 25 days from the date of publication to submit statements at www.puc.pa.gov/filing-resources/efiling. Once that process is complete, the PUC board will make a final decision on whether to accept the settlement, reject it or ask for it to be revised.