A new law imposing an impact fee on Marcellus Shale natural gas wells is being challenged by an informal coalition of municipalities, an environmental group and some medical professionals, who have lodged a legal challenge arguing provisions in the legislation make it unconstitutional.

The law — and its nebulous status — has caused local complications, as doctors, planners and some township supervisors have struggled to interpret and adjust to its mandates.

“We’re rolling with the punches, and that’s what most municipalities are doing right now,” said Boggs Township Supervisor Tom Poorman. “It’s frustrating in a way, because the state is taking control over what should be a local decision, but other things have been this way too, and we all have a wait-and-see attitude until things get ironed out.”

Act 13 created uniformity out of the patchwork of local ordinances that companies were confronted with when drilling across large swaths of the state. The law also included an impact fee that counties can enact. Counties that enact the impact fee split up the money between municipalities, the county and the state.

But seven municipalities are suing the state, arguing that the law compromises the health, welfare and safety of their residents in violation of the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

Since the law’s passage in February, Centre County municipalities have been combing through their local ordinances to ensure they are in accord with the new requirements. If they aren’t, that could result in forfeiture of the impact fee money and open them to lawsuits from drillers. With the legal challenge to Act 13, municipalities have been thrown into limbo too, unsure of whether to proceed with their reviews, which can be costly, or wait until the suit has been decided.

“We have discussed it with our attorney,” Poor-man said. “We’re not sure what direction we’re going to take yet, but until the suit is decided, there’s not a whole lot we see we can do.”

Daryl Schafer, chairman of the Centre County Republican Party and a supervisor in Haines Township, said he had not encountered any problems with the law. His township, which is in the process of enacting zoning, has given its Planning Commission the directive to align any new local ordinances with the zoning restrictions outlined in Act 13.

“From a timing perspective, Act 13 works OK for us because we had nothing set in stone, and we can make changes fairly easily,” he said.

Also being challenged in the lawsuit is a section of the 174-page law that requires health professionals to sign a confidentiality agreement to access proprietary information owned by the gas industry. The lawsuit contends the provision imposes a gag order on doctors and nurses that impedes their ability to treat patients who have been exposed to chemicals used in gas drilling.

“If the doctor is keeping the information confidential then he is not sharing it with the patient, because then the patient could share it with the world. If he doesn’t tell his patient, then he’s violating his medical ethics by not telling the patient what is potentially hurting him,” said Jerry Silberman, a staff representative from the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, which represents 5,000 medical professionals and supports the challenge to the law.

The potential delays created by keeping secret the identity of the chemicals used in the drilling process could put patients at risk, said Stan Kotala, a practitioner of family medicine and Altoona resident. Kotala is also an officer in the local chapter of the Sierra Club.

“To limit doctors’ ability to find out what chemical could possibly be causing symptoms in the patient is just outrageous,” he said. “(Act 13) violates the ethics of a doctor, which to me is entirely illegitimate and immoral.”

State officials have defended the provision, arguing it was added explicitly to give medical professionals access to legally protected trade secrets.