Tensions rise as the WV Senate passes a bill to loosen regulations on storage tanks near drinking water

The West Virginia Senate passed an expedited bill Wednesday that would weaken oversight of above-ground storage tanks across the state used to store liquids from industrial, mining, utility or energy operations, many of which are located near sources of drinking water.

Senate Bill 641 The bill moved quickly through the Senate this week before being passed on Wednesday. This was the last day it could be adopted by the body, due to the deadline required for most bills to pass through the chamber in which they originally originated. Although the bill was introduced on January 28, it was first considered and passed by the Senate Committee on Energy, Industry and Mines Monday.

On Wednesday, the proposal was in its third reading and was due to be adopted by the plenary session.

Sen. Chris Rose, R-Monongalia, is the bill’s lead sponsor. He said locally Wednesday that lawmakers worked “in good faith” with the state Department of Environmental Protection and the oil and gas industry to craft the legislation. He did not mention work done during drafting of the bill with water conservation organizations or people living in communities below the tanks, who would be subject to fewer regulations if the law takes effect.

SB 641 passed the Senate 24-9one member is absent and not entitled to vote. Seven Republican senators joined Democrats Joey Garcia, D-Marion, and Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, in voting against the bill. The bill will now move to the House of Representatives for consideration.

The proposed legislation would require tanks containing 50,000 gallons or less of salt water or other liquids resulting from hydrocarbon activities in critical risk zones to be classified as Level 2 tanks rather than Level 1 tanks. State regulations apply stricter rules for their construction, containment and monitoring for Level 1 tanks near drinking water sources. When a tank is downgraded to Level 2, it remains on the books, but with lower requirements and fewer protections against leaks and spills.

Some of the tanks in these critical zones would be exempt from official inspections by the state. Instead, the owners or operators of the tanks would be responsible for self-inspecting and certifying the tanks at least annually. These inspections would continue to be referred to the state. They would also be required to conduct “secondary safety inspections” at least once a month.

Lawmakers passed it on Wednesday a change by Rose by voice vote that allows companies to apply “remote non-destructive technology” to conduct inspections to “reduce human entry into enclosed spaces as much as possible.”

Tensions rise with personal attacks on experts during the debate

The legislature voted against it the change by Garcia, which would have narrow the tanks eligible for lower regulations to tanks containing salt water.

He said other tanks should remain under stricter supervision because they contain materials that, even at low levels, have been linked to kidney disease, cancer and more when consumed by people. If these tanks leak, Garcia continued, residents downstream could face significant health impacts that are not worth the risk.

Scott Mandirola, technical adviser for water policy and regulations for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said in an interview Wednesday that only about 13% of the tanks for which SB 641 would loosen regulations — about 85 tanks in all — contain brine water.

According to documents provided to West Virginia Watch by the Rivers Coalition as part of a Freedom of Information Act request to the DEP, hundreds of other tanks whose regulations would be weakened under the proposed legislation could also contain gasoline, diesel, benzene, xylene and more.

“The argument is that none of these tanks have ever caused a problem with a drinking water source,” Mandirola said. “The key term that should be included in this argument is: ‘Yet’.”

Mandirola worked as DEP’s deputy cabinet secretary for about 10 years before joining the Rivers Coalition in 2025. Previously, he led the agency’s Water and Waste Management Department from 2008 to 2018.

Mandirola testified Monday in the Senate Energy Committee that the proposed changes in SB 641 would “significantly” weaken drinking water protections in communities where above-ground storage tanks are located. Response times to possible leaks would be longer, he said. Standards for building the tanks to ensure they remain resilient would be lowered.

While debating Garcia’s amendment on Wednesday, Rose suggested that Mandirola had previously “misled” the Senate Energy Committee when he testified before it in 2024 – while working for the DEP – on a similar bill. Rose alleged that Mandirola gave misleading information for personal gain.

Garcia quickly refuted Rose. He said it was “below the jurisdiction” of the Senate to “impugn” a person’s reputation and “drag their name” during a political debate.

In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Mandirola said Rose had been “misinformed.” He urged Rose to look at the DEP’s publicly available documents — information he oversaw the collection of during his tenure there — and see for himself that oil and gas industry groups aren’t telling him the whole truth.

The board ultimately voted against Garcia’s amendment 6-27 one member is absent and not entitled to vote.

Who benefits and who might be harmed by weaker above-ground storage tank regulations?

The goal of SB 641, Rose said, is to facilitate compact, compact oil and gas companies overcome burdensome regulations.

“This is regulatory relief for small, small gas producers in the state of West Virginia who are barely making ends meet because we keep issuing new regulations,” Rose said. “Every time one isn’t followed, we add 10 more and say that will fix the problem. We’ll just keep piling them up and regulating everything to death until every company leaves West Virginia.”

But DEP documents show it’s not just compact businesses that would benefit. Major oil and gas companies from Kentucky and Pennsylvania to Colorado and Texas are in zones of particular concern and could face fewer regulations as a result of passage of SB 641.

Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, said she supported the bill as an outside observer. There is narrow oil and gas activity in their district in the Eastern Panhandle.

“I want to point out that I have no interest in gas and oil at all. I have nothing to gain from this legislation other than it is something that is important to West Virginians,” Rucker said.

According to campaign finance filings with the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, Rucker received at least $21,000 from oil and gas industry lobbying groups, individuals and companies during her 2020 and 2024 elections.

The state initially took over Above Ground Storage Tanks Act with unanimously Support in 2014.

Only two months beforea tank containing the coal cleaning chemical MCHM that leaked into the Elk River from Freedom Industries and contaminated the water supplies of residents of nine West Virginia counties, primarily in the Kanawha Valley. Up to 300,000 residents were ordered not to drink or bathe in tap water for days.

The original Above Ground Storage Tanks Act added a regulation requiring all tanks to be registered and an inventory kept detailing their contents. Operators and owners have been directed to prepare spill response plans and provide guidance on how local water supplies might be affected if a spill occurs. The law also codified the requirement that all tanks undergo certified inspections to ensure they are functioning as intended.

In the last 12 yearsthere were at least 12 Try According to the state legislature’s bill, lawmakers have decided to relax the requirements of the original 2014 above-ground storage tank law. Some were accepted, while others died in committee without being taken up for consideration.

In 2017, Mandirola said, a law was passed to exempt about 22,000 tanks from the law. SB 641 would remove another 1,000 tanks. More than 650 of them are directly related to the activities of the oil and gas industry.

During his time with the DEP in 2024, Mandirola said he worked on a report to show where the reported leaks in above-ground storage tanks came from. About 80% of those leaks, he said, are related to hydrocarbon activities — the very types of tanks that would be less regulated under SB 641.

“So the oil and gas industry groups are not necessarily the most reliable when it comes to tanks,” Mandirola said. “Not regulating them or relaxing the regulations for tanks in critical drinking water areas or for tanks tied to certain industries seems stupid.”

Garcia urged his colleagues to protect drinking water for hundreds of communities in West Virginia, where residents downstream of these tanks could face grave danger if uncontrolled leaks occur. The current law has worked well, he said, and changing it isn’t worth the risk SB 641 could bring.

“There has not been another chemical accident from Freedom Industries, and that’s why I think it’s important that we follow good regulations that protect our drinking water,” Garcia said. “There are few things more important.”