As the quest has indicated, the gas and oil industry cannot regulate it self. Given that, how will that continue now that the regulatory adverse Republican party is in charge here in PA and on the national level there are attemps to defund the EPA?

The following comments from a Sierra Club’s lobbyist on a ProPublica article lead me to have serious reservations believing in the credibility of your guest:

"You should know that, since leaving office, Secretary Hanger has joined a lobbying firm (Eckert Seamans) whose clients include the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania.
1) One of the first actions Secretary Hanger took upon his confirmation as DEP Secretary was to unilaterally remove the County Conservation Districts from the process for Erosion and Sedimentation plan review for gas well permitting. The DEP then began automatically approving E & S plans, as long as they were signed off by a registered engineer. This had the effect of significantly “streamlining” the permitting process. No on-site review by someone who knew the soils/geology/wetlands of the area. The Conservation Districts were outraged that they had been removed from the review process, with no communications from DEP prior to the decision. That has led to improper E & S plans that resulted in surface water contamination from runoff in a number of locations. There have also been fuel and chemical spills that have migrated off-site at some well pads. The Conservation Community continues to advocate for the return of Conservation Districts to E & S review.
2) Early in the Marcellus Shale drilling boom, when Hanger was still new to DEP, Sierra Club called for a major re-write of the PA Oil and Gas Act permitting requirements and enforcement regulations. That Act, passed in 1984, did not (and still does not) reflect the reflect the new challenges presented by deep horizontal drilling utilizing the fracking process. Hanger publicly argued with me after a hearing on the subject, claiming that PA"s regulations were adequate to take care of the problems associated the new drilling proicesses. In the Propublica interview, he is attempting to rewrite history, as his legacy of needing to play catch-up with the drilling industry becomes more apparent with each new accident, contaminated well or spill. It is true that the bonding amounts need to be dramatically increased. But we also need a significant increase in the set-backs from homes, water wells and surface waters, as well as a host of other improvements.
3) Inspections: DEP is still woefully understaffed, and cannot get out to wells and drilling sites to perform the needed inspections. While DEP’s procedures call for inspections, when we tried to amend the law to make them mandatory, DEP under Hanger opposed us.
No doubt, Secretary Hanger was following instructions he was getting from the Governor’s office. In fact, Governor Rendell’s Deputy Chief of Staff left his government job to take a high-paying position with Range Resources and Hanger’s Executive Deputy Secretary left to take a position with Chesapeake. The former left government shortly after Governor Rendell dropped his support for a gas severance tax and the latter left after convincing Hanger to remove Conservation Districts from the E & S plan review process."...

As a resident of Marcellus Shale County, I have read the New York Times article by Ian Urbina and I have reviewed the Film by Josh Fox. And I do have concerns about the future of water quality and the impact the wells and appurtenances will have on the future view shed of Pennsylvania.

I believe the DEP and the State lawmakers view of the Marcellus Gas as good for business. Yet prior to the first well and subsequent wells, no proper environmental impact statement has been published. This statement would identifying current and long term effects of the drilling. If there is one that addressed the issues being discussed today, where can it be found? For example in state there are pockets of uranium. ("OCCURENCES OF URANIUM IN CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA" By Harry Klemic and R.C Baker, United States Geological Survey Circular 350. And Smith, II, R. C. and Hoff, D. T., 1984, Geology and mineralogy of copper-uranium occurrences in the Picture Rocks and Sonestown quadrangles, Lycoming and Sullivan Counties, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Mineral Resource Report 80, 271 p., 4 pls., geol. and min. resource map, scale 1:24,000. )

If there is no impact statement, then the reason is probably that to conduct the review and to ask the questions of long term effect would be that such labour intensive study would deter the drillers from drilling in Pennsylvania and to ask questions would hurt the gas business. As for employment, where are the jobs Marcellus shale is to create?

As for John Hanger defense of the industry, it is clear that he is on the side of the gas well drillers. One to support this statement is found on the ANGA - America's Natural Gas Alliance web site in reference to the film of gas land.

"In an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, John Hanger, the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection said the film is "fundamentally dishonest" and "a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect."

It appears any information contrary to the views and policy of the gas industry is defended by Mr. Hanger. Whether in a film or the New York Times it is going to be countered by the Past PA DEP Secretary. My Hanger is not a spokes person for the environment of Pennsylvania but for the gas industry.

May I suggest an interview with both Josh Fox and Ian Urbina.

Hanger has always sent out a mixed message about the Marcellus gas industry:

(1) he has supported the rights of the drillers to be in Pennsylvania, but
(2) as Secretary of the DEP he was charged with the primary mandate TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, and this was in direct conflict with his first belief.

Had Hanger truly taken to heart his mission statement TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT he would have ordered an environmental impact study before any drilling would be allowed at all.

He didn't do this.
The reason is simple: Hanger believes that "protecting the environment" involves encouraging the lesser of two evils . . .because as he expresses it, natural gas is "cleaner" than coal.

The argument that natural gas is "cleaner" than coal is a fallacy: when all the additional environmental impacts of the extraction and distribution are factored in, with the longterm health risks to everyone from the chemicals and gas getting into the water, air, and soil, natural gas is equally dangerous to the environmental.

Hanger's position as apologist for the drilling has been in direct conflict with his mandate to protect the environment.
And he continues to contend that he acted wisely--------I disagree.

He should have been far more demanding in his role as PA's environmental steward.
He wasn't.

Under his watch, Big Money won over the environment. . .
and continues its influence with Corbett as governor.

Yes, absolutely the water should be tested for radiation! I was astounded to hear that it was only recently mandated to treat the waste water prior to returning it to the hydrologic cycle. The previous governor stated in his exit interview on this show no water was being re-introduced to the hydrologic cycle that didn't meet federal clean drinking water standards. I think he may want to revise that statement. It think it has become evident we as citizens of Pennsylvania cannot rely on our elected and appointed officials to have our best interests at heart. I’m sure behind closed doors any dissenters are met with the hackneyed cliché, “You can’t see the forest through the trees.”

Now we're hearing that the Fish and Boat Commission will have additional duties concerning Mercellus Shale drilling. There are reports that frack water dumped into water treatment plant is not safe. Yet, STILL, the Corbett Administration will apparently not consider imposing a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas. All of the arguments that I've heard against the tax are specious. We are the only state with significant Marcellus resources that isn't imposing a tax. This isn't an infant industry - it's been around for 150 years and mostly run by multinational companies.

Why are we leaving this revenue source on the table??

To the point the guest is talking about:

Is the benefit of cheap gas and jobs worth the issue of contaminated ground water? If ground water does become contaminated what do have to do to fix the contamination? What is the cost and length of time needed to fix the problem?

The following comments from a Sierra Club’s lobbyist on a ProPublica article lead me to have serious reservations believing in the credibility of your guest:

"You should know that, since leaving office, Secretary Hanger has joined a lobbying firm (Eckert Seamans) whose clients include the Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania.
1) One of the first actions Secretary Hanger took upon his confirmation as DEP Secretary was to unilaterally remove the County Conservation Districts from the process for Erosion and Sedimentation plan review for gas well permitting. The DEP then began automatically approving E & S plans, as long as they were signed off by a registered engineer. This had the effect of significantly “streamlining” the permitting process. No on-site review by someone who knew the soils/geology/wetlands of the area. The Conservation Districts were outraged that they had been removed from the review process, with no communications from DEP prior to the decision. That has led to improper E & S plans that resulted in surface water contamination from runoff in a number of locations. There have also been fuel and chemical spills that have migrated off-site at some well pads. The Conservation Community continues to advocate for the return of Conservation Districts to E & S review.
2) Early in the Marcellus Shale drilling boom, when Hanger was still new to DEP, Sierra Club called for a major re-write of the PA Oil and Gas Act permitting requirements and enforcement regulations. That Act, passed in 1984, did not (and still does not) reflect the reflect the new challenges presented by deep horizontal drilling utilizing the fracking process. Hanger publicly argued with me after a hearing on the subject, claiming that PA"s regulations were adequate to take care of the problems associated the new drilling proicesses. In the Propublica interview, he is attempting to rewrite history, as his legacy of needing to play catch-up with the drilling industry becomes
more apparent with each new accident, contaminated well or spill.
It is true that the bonding amounts need to be dramatically increased. But we also need a significant increase in the set-backs from homes, water wells and surface waters, as well as a host of other improvements.
3) Inspections: DEP is still woefully understaffed, and cannot get
out to wells and drilling sites to perform the needed inspections.
While DEP’s procedures call for inspections, when we tried to amend the law to make them mandatory, DEP under Hanger opposed us.
No doubt, Secretary Hanger was following instructions he was getting from the Governor’s office. In fact, Governor Rendell’s Deputy Chief of Staff left his government job to take a high-paying position with Range Resources and Hanger’s Executive Deputy Secretary left to take a position with Chesapeake. The former left government shortly after Governor Rendell dropped his support for a gas severance tax and the latter left after convincing Hanger to remove Conservation Districts from the E & S plan review process."...

Thank you for all the emails. It's obvious Pennsylvanians are very much interested in the issues related to Marcellus Shale drilling. WITF will continue to follow it closely.

Mr. Pauley: In answer to your question, former Sec. Hanger has not and is not employed by the gas industry. He is the former president of Penn Future, one of the state's largest environmental groups. It is one of the ironies of this issue is that Hanger has often been criticized as too much of an environmental activist. You will not find many Republican legislators who were great supporters of Sec. Hanger.