2026 Q2 Update
2026 Q2 UPDATE | 3 www.alstonpfas.com Federal Updates JUNE 2026 House and Senate Introduce Bills to Ban PFAS in Food Packaging (June 9, 2026) Lawmakers in the House and Senate reintroduced companion bills, H.R.9231 and S.4724, seeking to ban PFAS and other chemicals of concern in food packaging and food processing materials. MAY 2026 EPA Issues Proposed Rules Addressing PFAS in Drinking Water (May 18, 2026) The EPA issued two proposed rules for PFAS in public drinking water. In the first, the EPA proposed retaining existing maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS at 4.0 ppt and extending the deadline for compliance with the requirements from April 2029 to April 2031 for eligible systems that apply for an extension. In the second, the EPA proposed rescinding regulatory determinations, maximum containment level goals, and MCLs for four additional PFAS—PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and PFBS. The EPA has stated that it will reevaluate these substances and undertake another public comment period before any new MCLs for these constituents are proposed. APRIL 2026 EPA Again Delays PFAS Reporting Deadline Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (April 9, 2026) The EPA for the third time pushed back the reporting deadline for PFAS manufacturers to submit data under the Toxic Substances Control Act Section 8(a)(7) Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule. The submission period for the PFAS Reporting Rule will begin on January 31, 2027, or 60 days following the effective date of a forthcoming final rule on the substantive requirements of the PFAS Reporting Rule, whichever is earlier. Under the original rule promulgated in 2023, reporting was due by May 2025, but the deadline was later extended twice. EPA Announces Draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (April 2, 2026) The EPA announced the release of a draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The agency designated microplastics and pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups, alongside PFAS, disinfection byproducts, and numerous other chemicals and microbes. State Updates CONNECTICUT June 2026: Enacted H.B. 5518, which requires the commissioner of public health to issue a list of PFAS and their acceptable levels. By January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the law requires water bottling and distribution entities to sample, test, and analyze water sources for compliance with the determined acceptable levels and report the results to the Departments of Public Health and Consumer Protection. In addition, the law requires owners of leased residential or commercial property, no later than 48 hours after receiving the results for the water supply of the property, to notify tenants of any test results exceeding the acceptable levels for PFAS. DELAWARE June 2026: Passed H.B. 356, which would (1) prohibit the sale of Class B firefighting foam including intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2028; (2) require manufacturers to notify their customers in the state about the prohibition by January 1, 2027; and (3) require manufacturers to recall or reimburse purchasers of prohibited firefighting foam by March 1, 2028. In addition, the bill would require sellers of firefighting personal protection equipment containing PFAS to include a written notice. FLORIDA June 2026: Enacted HB 1019, which prohibits the use of AFFF for nonemergency instruction, training, or testing beginning July 1, 2026; the sale, purchase, and distribution of AFFF beginning July 1, 2027; and the use of AFFF beginning July 1, 2029. The law includes exceptions for airports and military applications and emergency firefighting situations when alternatives do not exist. It also requires certain public entities disposing of domestic wastewater biosolids and treated effluent to quarterly conduct at least one sampling for PFAS and submit results to the Department of Environmental Protection, effective July 1, 2026. ILLINOIS July 2026: Enacted HB3409, which bans specific intentionally added ingredients from cosmetics, including several PFAS. The law prohibits knowingly manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding, or offering for sale cosmetic products containing the prohibited PFAS chemicals. The law takes effect on July 1, 2028. May 2026: Passed SB3917, which would amend the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to require PFAS sampling in NPDES permits for major facilities. The bill would also require NPDES permit applications for any discharge of wastewater that has the potential to contain PFAS. Finally, it would prohibit the issuance of a permit for sludge or biosolids without sampling results for PFAS, and would require that permits for sludge or biosolids require PFAS testing. MAINE April 2026: Enacted LD 2070 (HP 1383), which requires monitoring, control, and treatment and reduction of PFAS in landfill leachate and emissions of sludge treatment facilities. The law also establishes a stakeholder group to assess alternatives to certain landfill sites.
2026 Q2 UPDATE | 5 www.alstonpfas.com MARYLAND April 2026 • Enacted SB719 / HB925, which establishes a tiered framework for managing sewage sludge containing PFAS. Biosolids containing 25 ppb or more of PFAS would trigger additional state oversight and restrictions on land application. The law also mandates that farmers be notified when biosolids to be spread on their fields contain elevated levels of PFAS. It also requires wastewater treatment plants to identify and study sources of PFOA and PFOS entering their systems when levels rise above 25 ppb, and to develop mitigation plans. • Enacted SB656 / HB1533, which establishes a new enforcement and penalty framework for cosmetic products containing certain intentionally added ingredients, including certain PFAS. The law builds on existing laws by broadening enforcement authority and introducing enhanced civil penalties for violations. It also requires sellers to prepare and retain product safety assessment documentation reviewed by a safety assessor before products are placed on the market or distributed. MASSACHUSETTS April 2026: Introduced S.3034, which would establish a PFAS Remediation Trust Fund to mitigate PFAS contamination in a variety of media; ban the use of AFFF; prohibit the sale of food packaging containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2028; and prohibit the sale of priority products (including children’s products, cookware, personal care products, textiles, and upholstered furniture) beginning January 1, 2029. The bill would also ban the application of biosolids effective June 30, 2028, require development of a statewide management plan, amend discharge permits with PFAS monitoring requirements, and provide farmers immunity from civil liability for PFAS-related agricultural damages. This bill replaces S.1504, introduced in February 2025. February 2026: The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs added nine PFAS substances to its Toxic or Hazardous Substance List. See 301 CMR 41.03(18). MICHIGAN April 2026 • Introduced HB 5890, which would prohibit, beginning January 1, 2027, the manufacture for sale of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, including apparel, carpets, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, juvenile products, menstruation products, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. The bill would establish criminal penalties for violations, including misdemeanor charges for first and second offenses and felony charges for third or subsequent offenses, and would authorize private rights of action, including class actions, for persons who suffer losses as a result of violations. • Introduced HB 5892, which would prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetic products containing intentionally added PFAS and other chemicals above specified limits beginning January 1, 2027. The bill would impose civil fines of up to $5,000 for a first violation and up to $10,000 for subsequent violations per product line. • Introduced HB 5893, which would increase the maximum fine for environmental violations to 5% of annual gross revenue for corporations with revenue exceeding $5 million and would establish a grant program to assist farmers impacted by PFAS contamination. • Introduced HB 5896, which would require persons that prepare biosolids and use sewage sludge or sewage sludge derivatives for land application to test for PFAS before application and submit results to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy. The bill would also require biosolids preparers to notify landowners and farmers of the PFAS concentration in applied biosolids. MINNESOTA May 2026: Enacted SF 4612, which amends state PFAS reporting requirements under the state’s PFAS reporting law (Amara’s Law) by excluding products manufactured before July 1, 2023 that contain intentionally added PFAS. April 2026 • The Pollution Control Agency extended to September 15, 2026 the deadline for manufacturers to submit reports on their use of PFAS in products required under Amara’s Law. The previous reporting deadline was July 1, 2026. Manufacturers that cannot meet the September 15, 2026 deadline may apply for one 90-day extension until December 14, 2026. Extension requests must be postmarked by August 16, 2026. • Introduced SF 5092, which would extend to July 1, 2027 the date manufacturers are required to submit information about products containing intentionally added PFAS. It would also apply the reporting requirement only to products manufactured after July 1, 2027 (rather than July 1, 2023 as under existing law). The bill would also clarify that the use of PFAS in certain products (including some HVAC and refrigeration equipment, veterinary products, semiconductors, and some products developed for public health or water-quality testing) is a currently unavoidable use. The bill is similar to HF 4257, introduced in May 2026. NEW JERSEY June 2026 • Introduced S4468, which would require the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), within 12 months, to adopt drinking-water standards for PFAS consistent with the U.S. EPA’s national standards in effect as of January 1, 2026, setting maximum contaminant levels of 4 ppt for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA, along with hazard index requirements for other regulated PFAS. The bill would also require the DEP to establish a private-well testing program. Finally, the bill would create a Private Well Testing Assistance Fund, which could be credited with money from PFAS contamination settlements or judgments to fund testing and remediation such as drinking-water filtration systems. • Passed S1281 / A5048, which would prohibit, beginning two years after enactment, the sale, offer for sale, manufacture, or distribution for sale or use of any apparel or diaper product containing intentionally added PFAS, with violations subject to the remedies and penalties under the Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act.
2026 Q2 UPDATE | 7 www.alstonpfas.com NEW MEXICO April 2026 • The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) adopted rules classifying AFFF as hazardous waste, granting the Environment Department direct authority to require responsible parties to clean up AFFF discharges and to strictly limit AFFF’s use in the state. • The NMEIB adopted a package of rules for PFAS in consumer products. Beginning January 1, 2027, manufacturers may not sell, offer, or distribute cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products, and AFFF with intentionally added PFAS. Beginning January 1, 2028, the list of products expands to carpets, cleaning products, cosmetics, fabric treatments, feminine hygiene products, textiles, textile furnishings, ski wax, and upholstered furniture. Beginning January 1, 2032, all products with intentionally added PFAS that are not specifically exempted under New Mexico law will be banned, unless the use of PFAS is deemed a “currently unavoidable use.” In addition, the rules require manufacturers to label all products made after January 1, 2027 to describe PFAS content. OHIO April 2026: Introduced HB 815, which would require the director of environmental protection to establish and regularly update drinking-water and water-quality standards for contaminants including PFAS, chromium-6, and 1,4-dioxane. The bill mandates individual and combined PFAS maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) based on scientific evidence, other states’ standards, and federal materials, and requires that standards be at least as stringent as U.S. EPA levels. It also requires the director to annually review and update the MCLs after providing notice and conducting public hearings. VERMONT May 2026: The governor vetoed H.727, which would have required data centers to monitor and test PFAS discharge in wastewater and comply with standards for authorizing PFAS in data center waste. The Vermont House sustained the governor’s veto. January 2026: Adopted PFAS requirements in its Water Supply Rule that prescribe PFAS analytical methods, set trigger levels for PFOA and PFOS, require initial monitoring beginning January 1, 2026 or the rule’s effective date, and require that initial sampling be completed by April 1, 2027. The Water Supply Rule also establishes how PFAS maximum contaminant level compliance is calculated and permits capital improvement extensions that may not extend beyond April 1, 2031. VIRGINIA April 2026: Enacted HB938 / SB138, which require certain industrial users of the state’s publicly owned treatment works (POTW) to test their wastewater discharge for PFAS each quarter and self-report the results to the POTW and the Department of Environmental Quality. Litigation Updates Michigan Allowed to Pursue AFFF Claims in State Court The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to allow Michigan’s suit against a commercial airport for alleged PFAS contamination to proceed in state, rather than federal, court. The suit alleges that the Gerald R. Ford Airport Authority should be responsible for cleanup costs for releases and discharges of PFAS associated with the use of AFFF. The airport had sought to remove the case to federal multidistrict litigation, arguing that it was “acting under” a federal officer and citing to Federal Aviation Authority requirements for AFFF. The Sixth Circuit noted that this was the airport’s second attempt to remove the case based on the “acting under” theory, and that the law of the case barred the airport from relitigating the issue. June 30, 2026 | Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy v. Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority, No. 24-1734 (6th Cir.). North Carolina Community Seeking PFAS Remediation at County Landfill The Southern Environmental Law Center filed a citizen suit on behalf of a North Carolina community group seeking to require Robeson County to abate PFAS groundwater contamination from a county-owned landfill. The suit also alleges that the county-owned public water facility is sourcing public drinking water from the contaminated groundwater, allegedly putting human health and the environment at risk. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the county’s disposal and handling of solid waste present an imminent and substantial danger. It also seeks an injunction requiring the county to clean up the allegedly contaminated groundwater, suspend use of the water facility until PFAS have been confirmed to be removed from the treated water, and provide alternative water supplies to local residents if needed. June 16, 2026 | St. Pauls Community Association for Progress v. Robeson County, North Carolina, No. 7:26-cv-00251 (E.D.N.C.). Tenth Circuit Keeps Air Force Challenge to New Mexico Law in Federal Court The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the U.S. Air Force’s challenge to New Mexico’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitting requirements may proceed in federal, rather than state, court. The Air Force sued the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) in federal court asserting that its hazardous-waste law exceeds the regulatory authority granted to the state under RCRA, after NMED sought to hold the Air Force responsible for AFFF-related PFAS contamination at Cannon Air Force Base. NMED had argued that RCRA’s sovereign-immunity waiver subjects federal entities to state procedural requirements for management of hazardous waste and that state court jurisdiction is one such procedural requirement. While the district court agreed with NMED, the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that state judicial review provisions are not procedural requirements under RCRA. June 16, 2026 | United States v. New Mexico Environment Department, No. 22-2132 (10th Cir.).
2026 Q2 UPDATE | 9 www.alstonpfas.com Greg Berlin Partner Meaghan Boyd Partner Jeffrey Dintzer Partner Matt Wickersham Partner Andrew Roberts Senior Associate Hillary Sanborn Senior Associate Robia Amjad Associate Frankie Brown Associate Megan Couch Associate Madeline Daniel Associate Andrea Galvez Associate Kiara Harding Associate Ytran Hoang Associate Jane Kaufman Associate Clayton Kinsey Associate Briana Matusovsky Associate Jacki Moreira Associate Rachel Robson Associate Parsa Tafazoli Yazdi Associate Contributors Fourth Circuit Reverses PFAS Injunction The Fourth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction barring Chemours from discharging more HFPODA, one type of PFAS, from its Washington Works facility into the Ohio River than its Clean Water Act (CWA) permit allows. The Fourth Circuit first held that the plaintiff, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, had shown a substantial likelihood of Article III associational standing through member Charlise Robinson, who avoided boating in the river because of Chemours’s alleged permit violations. According to the Fourth Circuit, that decision to avoid boating was an injury in fact, traceable to the discharges, and redressable by an injunction. However, the Fourth Circuit found that the district court’s irreparable-harm analysis was flawed. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that the district court’s analysis improperly weighed alleged public harm, presumed harm from a CWA violation, and relied on expert testimony showing only increased risk rather than harm that was more likely than not. Because Robinson did not drink or cook with her tap water, the finding of harm was clearly erroneous, and the injunction was vacated. June 3, 2026 | West Virginia Rivers Coalition Inc. v. Chemours Co. FC LLC, No. 25-1924 (4th Cir.). Montana Federal Court Declines to Sanction Forum-Shopping Plaintiffs The District of Montana denied motions for fees, costs, sanctions, and a stay under Rule 41(d) that were brought by 3M, DuPont, and other defendants in a nationwide class action alleging that PFAScontaining firefighter gear caused certain health effects. The Connecticut purchaser plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed their first-filed Connecticut action and then refiled in Montana, where related municipal claims had progressed more quickly. The defendants argued that this reflected improper forum- and judge-shopping, especially given the plaintiffs’ earlier opposition to transfer to the AFFF MDL based on their position that Connecticut was the proper venue. The District of Montana disagreed, finding that although the plaintiffs took somewhat inconsistent positions, changed circumstances—including the Montana action’s faster pace and the addition of new plaintiff cities— justified consolidation there. Because there had been no adverse substantive rulings against the plaintiffs in Connecticut, the court found no bad faith and denied the motions. May 28, 2026 | City & County of Butte-Silver Bow v. 3M Co., No. 2:25-cv-00036 (D. Mont.). Michigan Landfills Survive Motion to Dismiss in CERCLA PFAS Case Two Michigan landfills, Central Sanitary Landfill and Ottowa County Landfill, survived motions to dismiss their Superfund cost recovery claims against PFAS manufacturers and users. In denying the motions to dismiss, the court rejected the defendant’s “useful product” defense—that it sold a legitimate, valuable product that only later became a hazardous waste. The court also rejected an argument that at least one of the plaintiffs did not actually allege a release of PFAS-contaminated leachate and that any releases that did occur were covered as federally permitted under the Clean Water Act. May 7, 2026 | Central Sanitary Landfill Inc. v. Wolverine World Wide Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01639 (W.D. Mich.). Go to the PFAS Primer for more information about PFAS and regular updates on the latest regulations, litigation, and science involving PFAS. Learn more about our Perfluoroalkyl & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Team and how we can help you stay ahead of the curve.
Atlanta | Brussels | Century City | Charlotte | Chicago | Dallas | London | Los Angeles | New York | Raleigh | San Francisco | Silicon Valley | Washington, D.C.
www.alston.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI4MjIwNg==