An Act to amend and reenact § 62.1-44.34:32 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Department of Environmental Quality; industrial wastewater; publicly owned treatment works; PFAS monitoring.
HB938 amends Virginia’s PFAS monitoring law to expand and clarify who must test for and report per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in industrial wastewater and related discharges. The bill directs the Department of Environmental Quality to require quarterly PFAS discharge monitoring, after advance notice, from facilities that are potentially significant sources of PFAS in a public water system’s raw water source. Covered facilities include PFAS manufacturers, electroplating and metal finishing operations, semiconductor and circuit board facilities, paper and packaging manufacturers, textile mills, tanneries, leather/fabric/carpet treaters, centralized waste treatment facilities, industrial launderers, certain remediation and dewatering discharges, and airports, air bases, fire training facilities, landfills, and other sites with significant PFAS contamination.
The bill also requires publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to impose similar PFAS monitoring and reporting obligations on industrial users discharging into their systems. New industrial users must begin monitoring within 90 days of starting discharges, and POTWs must forward quarterly results to DEQ. The law allows monitoring to be reduced or discontinued in limited cases where results remain below the method detection level for specified periods, but if PFAS is detected above that level, ongoing quarterly monitoring is required, with the possibility of later reducing frequency to annual monitoring after sustained low results.
HB938 strengthens Virginia’s PFAS oversight framework by expanding DEQ’s authority to require monitoring of industrial and other potential PFAS sources and by placing parallel obligations on POTWs to collect and report PFAS data from industrial users. It amends § 62.1-44.34:32 of the Code of Virginia, affecting industrial dischargers, wastewater treatment systems, and facilities associated with PFAS use or contamination, while supporting PFAS assessments under related state law. The measure increases reporting, testing, and data-sharing requirements and may lead to earlier identification of PFAS sources affecting drinking water and wastewater systems.
The bill appears to have been enacted without recorded committee transcript debate or vote details in the provided materials, suggesting no documented public controversy in the available record. Its structure and scope indicate a policy approach focused on environmental monitoring and public health protection, with an emphasis on identifying PFAS sources and improving state oversight. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the supplied context points to generally favorable or at least non-contentious treatment.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of facilities covered and the compliance burden imposed on industrial users and POTWs. Facilities such as manufacturers, laundries, airports, landfills, and remediation sites may object to the cost and administrative demands of quarterly PFAS testing, reporting, and continued monitoring when detections occur. POTWs may also view the new reporting and pass-through monitoring responsibilities as operationally burdensome. On the other hand, environmental and public health advocates are likely to support the bill’s expanded monitoring as necessary for identifying contamination sources and protecting drinking water.