Contaminants Compass: June 2026 Edition

Contaminants Compass is a monthly newsletter that provides updates, legal observations and actionable tips to navigate the evolving legal challenges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and similar chemicals and products.

This edition highlights significant regulatory developments at the state level, including:

• Minnesota’s excluding older products from PFAS reporting requirements;
• Pennsylvania’s pending legislation banning PFAS in certain consumer products;
• Connecticut’s upcoming PFAS labeling and reporting deadline;
• New Jersey’s PFAS ban and labeling requirement; and
• New York’s strategy for applying guidance values to public water treatment facilities.

Look for new editions every month, and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area with questions regarding PFAS issues.

McGuireWoods Contaminants Compass CLE webinar will be back July 28, 2026, from 1-2 p.m. EDT. Join panelists Dixon Snukals and Mitch Diles who will discuss additional state regulatory updates and multi-state operations. Dixon will lead a Q&A with Joseph Reardon, vice chair of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC). Details coming soon.

---

I. Minnesota Loosens PFAS Reporting Requirements for Older Products

On May 26, 2026, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill dialing back Minnesota’s PFAS reporting requirements. Enacted as 2026 Minn. Laws, ch. 127, art. 14, § 4, the bill alters the scope of Minn. Stat. § 116.943. Under the prior law, Minnesota required companies that sold, offered for sale or distributed products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit a detailed disclosure to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). That provision required companies to disclose product identifying information (UPCs, SKUs, etc.), the purpose for which PFAS are used in the product, the amount of each PFAS, the name and address of the manufacturer, and the name, address and phone number of a contact person for the manufacturer. Importantly, the law applied to all products containing intentionally added PFAS regardless of production date — creating a significant burden for companies.

The new law excluded products manufactured before July 1, 2023, from reporting requirements. Companies only need to submit a disclosure to the MPCA if the product meets three conditions:

• The product was manufactured after July 1, 2023;
• The product was sold, offered for sale or distributed in the state; and
• The product contains intentionally added PFAS.

According to the MPCA, the reporting change “is the result of the MPCA’s conversations with product manufacturers, especially those responsible for replacement parts made years ago that are still available for purchase.”

That said, reporting deadlines remain the same. Companies seeking extensions and waivers must postmark such requests by Aug. 16, 2026. Initial reports are due by Sept. 15, 2026, and reports from manufacturers receiving extensions must be filed by Dec. 14, 2026. Additional details concerning reporting in PFAS products can be found on MPCA’s website.

II. Pennsylvania Bill Banning PFAS in Consumer Products

On June 8, 2026, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives advanced House Bill 2145, which seeks to amend Title 12 (Commerce and Trade) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes and ban PFAS in certain consumer products. The bill passed by a 188-13 vote and now heads to the Senate for consideration. The bill follows House Bill 1261, which seeks to ban the sale and use of firefighting foams with intentionally added PFAS. The House passed House Bill 1261 last year by a unanimous vote.

According to the House Bill 2145’s co-sponsorship memo, the bill seeks to address the risk of PFAS exposure from commonly used consumer products — particularly those used to care for children. As a result, the bill would prohibit PFAS in juvenile products as well as cosmetics, dental floss and menstrual products. At the same time, the bill would provide manufacturers with time to adjust to the prohibition. The bill states that “[b]eginning January 1, 2028, a person may not manufacture, sell or offer for sale in this Commonwealth, a covered product that contains an intentionally added PFAS chemical.”

The bill also imposes administration and enforcement duties on manufacturers of covered products. For example, the bill requires the manufacturer of a covered product to provide the state with a “certificate of compliance” affirming that the product complied with the provisions of Title 12 and does not contain an intentionally added PFAS. Moreover, no later than July 1, 2027, the manufacturer of a covered product must notify each vendor, purveyor or supplier of the product that the product “lack[s] compliance with law.” The bill also provides that the failure to comply “constitutes an unfair method of competition and unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of … [Pennsylvania’s] Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.”

The House’s passage of House Bill 2145 by a wide margin demonstrates broad bipartisan support of restricting the use of PFAS. But at a higher level, the bill’s passage continues the growing trend of states seeking to address and limit PFAS exposure and using consumer protection laws for enforcement of new PFAS laws.

III. Connecticut’s Upcoming PFAS Labeling and Reporting Deadline

Coming up on July 1, 2026, Connecticut’s PFAS labeling and reporting requirements go into effect. The requirement stems from Connecticut General Statutes Section 22a-903c. Passed in 2024, the law provides that certain consumer products with intentionally added PFAS must include an approved PFAS label beginning July 1, 2026. Only then can such products be manufactured, offered for sale, sold or distributed in the state. The law lists several categories of consumer products that must comply with that labeling requirement, including: apparel; carpets or rugs; cleaning products; cookware; cosmetic products; dental floss; fabric treatments; juvenile products; menstruation products; textile furnishings; ski wax; and upholstered furniture.

PFAS labels affixed to such products must be clearly visible prior to sale and otherwise notify the purchaser that the product contains PFAS. To do so, manufacturers must utilize words or symbols approved by the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP). And according to a Dec. 1, 2025, order issued by DEEP, manufacturers may use the following approved phrases:

• “Contains PFAS”
• “Made with PFAS”
• “Made with PFAS chemicals”
• “Made with intentionally added PFAS”
• “This product contains PFAS chemicals.”

As a final matter, labels must be “sufficiently durable” to remain legible throughout the product’s useful life.

Also on July 1, 2026, manufacturers must comply with PFAS reporting requirements when it comes to products with intentionally added PFAS. This includes providing a written notice to DEEP that describes the relevant product and its manufacturer. The notice must include the product’s name, a description of the product, information concerning the function or purpose of PFAS in the product, and the amount of each PFAS or PFAS subgroup present in the product, among other things. The “PFAS Reporting Form for Manufacturers” is available on DEEP’s website.

The Connecticut law is part of a broader effort to phase out consumer products with intentionally added PFAS. And as of Jan. 1, 2028, Connecticut law bans the manufacture, sale and distribution of such products, with the addition of turnout gear and outdoor apparel for “severe wet conditions.” It follows that manufacturers must make the proper disclosures and adjustments and eventually eliminate intentionally added PFAS from affected products or risk enforcement actions and fines.

IV. New Jersey’s PFAS Ban and Labeling Requirement

Like other states, New Jersey has sought to restrict the presence of intentionally added PFAS in consumer products. Earlier this year, former New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed Senate Bill 1042, the Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act. The act prohibits any person from selling, offering for sale or distributing a host of consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS, including carpets, fabric treatments, cosmetics and food packaging. Notably, the act limits food packaging to items “composed, in substantial part, of paper, paperboard, or other materials originally derived from plant fibers.”

The act also imposes labeling requirements on consumer cookware containing PFAS rather than an outright ban. This applies to any item used to prepare, dispense, or store food, foodstuffs, or beverages and to which heat is transferred (i.e., pots, pans, skillets, grills, baking sheets, baking molds, trays, bowls and cooking utensils). The label itself must state, in both English and Spanish, that “This product contains PFAS” — in a visible and legible manner. The act does not apply to products intended for commercial use.

New Jersey’s ban and labeling requirements take effect on Jan. 12, 2028. This window provides manufacturers time to evaluate affected products currently offered for sale, as well as their component materials, and eventually eliminate intentionally added PFAS from such products. If a manufacturer or company violates the law, New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs may bring a civil enforcement action and/or levy significant civil penalties for each violation, among other consequences.

While the act tracks efforts in other states to combat PFAS, it differs from existing and proposed laws in other states — such as Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Connecticut — because it does not impose reporting obligations. But that could change. The act requires the Department of Environmental Protection to submit annual reports to the Government and Legislature beginning in 2028. Those annual reports must document the effectiveness of the PFAS reduction programs and PFAS-related research, monitoring and testing required by the law. If the results of those programs and efforts are not successful, manufacturers should expect New Jersey to enact additional PFAS bans and requirements in the years to come.

V. New York Finalizes PFAS and 1,4-Dioxane Permit Strategy for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

In December 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) finalized a strategy to apply guidance values for PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-D) in State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Known as Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS) 1.3.14, the strategy follows a January 2024 proposed draft and public comment period.

New York’s SPDES permit program helps maintain the state’s waters with reasonable standards of purity. To do so, New York requires permits for entities constructing or using pipes that discharge wastewater into the state’s surface waters or ground waters. New York also requires permits for constructing or operating a disposal system such as a sewage treatment plant, as well as modifying, transferring and renewing a permit. As a result, POTWs — sewage treatment plants owned and operated by government agencies or municipalities — must comply with New York’s SPDES permit program and are otherwise subject to strict government regulation.

Guidance values, on the other hand, set the maximum allowable concentration or threshold level of pollutants or conditions necessary to protect water classes for specific uses, such as drinking, recreation or aquatic life. Due to the prevalence of PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-D in the environment caused by their historic and widespread use, NYSDEC sought to implement a strategy for controlling their discharge into watersheds.

Pursuant to TOGS 1.3.14, which is described as an “initial implementation strategy,” NYSDEC will focus on POTWs located within drinking water supply watersheds or those that recycle biosolids. Such POTWs will receive a request for information requiring them to provide influent and effluent sampling results for 1,4-D, as well as PFAS compounds using EPA Method 1633A. That method tests 40 PFAS compounds in wastewater, surface water, groundwater, soil, biosolids, sediment, landfill leachate and fish tissue. TOGS 1.3.14 requires that such sampling take place quarterly for a 12-month period.

Importantly, when sampling identifies a POTW requiring “additional investigation,” NYSDEC will adjust that POTW’s Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy score — used to evaluate a facility’s discharge to ensure it complies with water quality standards and does not cause environmental harm. Such a score change would likely trigger permit modifications and could even necessitate additional monitoring and/or a pollutant minimization program (PMP). That PMP would be used to identify the most significant industrial polluters and implement actions to reduce effluent concentrations of PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-D to protect the state’s water resources.

With additional POTW monitoring on the horizon, industrial users of PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-D should similarly expect increased oversight. Industrial users should expect directives to control the discharge of wastewater through best management practices, pretreatment, voluntary reductions in use and the establishment of local limits, among other things. Indeed, New York, like numerous other jurisdictions, has signaled its intent to address the prevalence of PFOA, PFOS and 1,4-D in water sources and hold polluters accountable.

---

McGuireWoods supports clients as they assess and mitigate their PFAS risk, develop and apply business operational responses to changing PFAS laws and regulations at federal and state levels, and defend litigation as it arises, including navigating and coordinating national scientific defenses in novel contexts. For questions, contact the authors or a member of the PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area.