WV Senate fast-tracking bill that would weaken protection from oil, gas tank spills

SB 641’s advancement follows oil spills at Appalachian Power substations in Wayne and Wyoming counties in January that devastated nearby communities and prompted cleanup efforts projected to last months.

West Virginia in 2024 had the country’s highest percentage of public water systems with health-based federal Safe Drinking Water Act violations — 29.2% — raising the stakes for stronger protection against industrial pollution.

Health-based violations represent the exceedance of maximum contaminant or residual disinfectant levels.

SB 641 quickly drew staunch opposition from clean water advocates objecting to rolling back protection against water after its Monday advancement, triggering an action alert email from the West Virginia Rivers Coalition calling on supporters to urge Senate members to reject the bill.

“Our communities are already struggling through multiple water crises throughout the state,� West Virginia Rivers Coalition communications manager Maggie Stange told the Gazette-Mail Monday. “West Virginians cannot afford weakened water protections.�

SB 641 would weaken provisions established via the 2014 Aboveground Storage Tank Act enacted in response to that January’s Elk River chemical leak that contaminated the water supply of 300,000 people.

The chemical that leaked was coal-processing agent 4-methylcychohexanemethanol via a leak from an aboveground storage tank at a Freedom Industries chemical storage and distribution facility in ÂÒÂ×ÄÚÉä.

Since the 2014 leak, West Virginia lawmakers have relaxed other aboveground storage tank regulations, dramatically reducing how many tanks are regulated by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The Energy, Industry and Mining Committee signed off on more rollbacks Monday with little deliberation, opting not to take testimony from what committee counsel said were members of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection and Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia in the committee’s meeting room.

The committee did hear from former DEP deputy secretary and current West Virginia Rivers Coalition water policy and regulations technical advisor Scott Mandirola, who noted the bill would shift some aboveground storage tanks to a category of lesser DEP oversight regarding secondary containment and other requirements.

The only senator to speak regarding the bill at the meeting was Assistant Minority Leader Joey Garcia, D-Marion, one of just two Democrats in the 34-member Senate.

“These regulations are here for a reason. They're here because something happened before that poisoned the water,� Garcia said, recalling the 2014 leak. “It’s important we have reasonable regulations to try to help protect our drinking water.�

Gas and Oil Association of West Virginia president-elect Rebecca McPhail backed the bill in an emailed statement to the Gazette-Mail Tuesday.

“By providing greater operational certainty and streamlining compliance, Senate Bill 641 enhances regulatory efficiency and supports responsible energy development across West Virginia,� McPhail said, predicting the bill would preserve “strong environmental protections while improving regulatory clarity — matching regulation to risk profile.�

But similar proposed rollbacks in past legislative sessions have drawn opposition from not only environmentalists but the West Virginia Rural Water Association, West Virginia American Water and the Morgantown Utility Board.

Many tanks regulated by the law SB 641 would roll back contain oil and constituents of petroleum products that include carcinogens such as benzene and other toxic chemicals.

The Legislature has gradually weakened its oversight of oil and gas tanks since 2014. The exemptions began a year after the Elk River spill, when the Legislature, in 2015, scaled back the Aboveground Storage Tank Act to only require inspection of tanks that contain either 50,000 gallons or more of hazardous material or are located within a zone of critical concern.

In 2017, the Legislature carved out an exemption for tanks outside zones of critical concern, the areas nearest to public water intakes. State law defines zones of critical concern as consisting of a five-hour water-travel time in streams to an intake, with a width of 1,000 feet horizontally from each bank of the principal stream.

January’s Wayne County spill occurred in what state law defines as a “zone of peripheral concern� — a zone covering public surface water supply sources and groundwater supply sources influenced by public surface water within an additional five-hour water travel time in streams beyond a "zone of critical concern," creating a protection zone of 10 hours above the water intake.

Last year, as DEP deputy secretary, Mandirola testified before state lawmakers that the state only regulated 11% of tanks in the state.

Terry Fletcher, DEP chief communications officer, said Tuesday the DEP is reviewing the proposed legislation and monitoring its status. Fletcher declined further comment.

SB 641's rollback provisions

SB 641 would expand the definition of tanks exempt under state law to explicitly, newly include tanks with a capacity under 8,820 gallons that contain brine water or other fluids in connection with hydrocarbon “transmission� and “storage� not located in a zone of critical concern.

Also newly exempted in state code to be amended by SB 641 would be any tank with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or less green-lit by a state groundwater certification program not within a zone of critical concern.

Mandirola testified that the inclusion of hydrocarbon “transmission and storage would cover devices associated with pipeline transmission.

SB 641 would recategorize an aboveground storage tank in a zone of critical concern, source water protection area or public surface water-influenced groundwater supply source area with a capacity of less than 50,000 gallons that contains brine water or other fluids produced in connection with hydrocarbon transmission, storage, or production activities, as a regulated level 2 tank rather than a level 1 tank.

That would mean less stringent inspection regulations.

Level 2 tanks generally have been aboveground storage tanks within a zone of peripheral concern that aren’t level 1 tanks.

But SB 641 would narrow that definition to such tanks with a capacity under 50,000 gallons in a zone of critical concern, source water protection area or public surface water influenced groundwater supply source area that hold brine water or other fluids produced in connection with hydrocarbon transmission, storage or production activities, and such tanks in a zone of peripheral concern that hold between 8,820 and 50,000 gallons of of the same fluids.

SB 641 would delay categorization of any existing aboveground storage tank located in an area that becomes designated as a zone of critical or peripheral concern as a level 1 or level 2 tank for nine months after written notice to the owner or operator of tanks in the newly designated zones of critical or peripheral concern.

The Aboveground Storage Tank Act has applied to tanks with a capacity of over 8,820 gallons. As of last year, of 25,021 hydrocarbon production tanks of that size, 482 — 1.9% — were in zones of critical concern, according to DEP data.

Todd Tetrick, an executive at Diversified Energy Co. PLC, one of the nation’s largest gas and oil well owners with a deep-well footprint throughout West Virginia, urged the state Joint Energy and Public Works Committee during the Legislature’s September 2025 interim session to remove the state’s “Level 1� jurisdiction over gas and oil tanks.

Tetrick said the law has “created significant operational and compliance burdens.�

A 2016 state legislative rule established:

• A registration fee of $40 per tank for all tanks in service prior to July 1, 2015

• A registration fee of $20 per tank for tanks placed into service since then

• An operating fee of $201 per tank per year for tanks within zones of critical concern

• An annual response fee to be reviewed annually

A March 2025 Gazette-Mail analysis found tanks that would have been exempted by a then-proposed Aboveground Storage Tank Act rollback via Senate Bill 592 had a combined capacity of over 2.75 million gallons of brine, oil, gas, crude oil and other hydrocarbon mixtures and 41 releases of crude oil, petroleum, wastewater and other substances from January 2022 through January 2025.

Of those 41 releases, 10 were from Diversified subsidiaries.

Of 263 leaking aboveground storage tank cases since 2016 recorded by the DEP, 141 were for tanks in zones of critical concern, according to agency records.

Former DEP executive: Wayne spill 'a good reference'   

What the DEP said was a roughly 4,900-gallon spill in Wayne County prompted a Jan. 16 “Do Not Consume� order at the direction of Wayne Mayor Danny Grace that lasted until Feb. 6, causing residents to turn to bottled drinking water and public shower and laundry facilities during a winter storm and weekslong cold spell.

“Granted, that's not qualified as a tank, but when we're talking about volumes, it's a good reference for volumes,� Mandirola told the committee.

“So … there's a reason why we have a zone of peripheral concern, and in this year, in 2026, that's affected drinking water based on — not exactly the same thing — but a tank containing certain chemicals?� Garcia, the assistant minority leader, asked Mandirola, referring to the Wayne County spill.

“Yes,� Mandirola replied.