Environmental Developments Manufacturers Should Monitor in 2026

The following article first appeared on Robinson+Cole’s Manufacturing Law Blog. It is reposted here with permission.

---

Welcome to the last of our three posts with our look ahead to 2026—the environmental edition.

If you follow this blog, you have probably sensed a trend: environmental regulation rarely moves in a straight line. This coming year will be no different.

Below is a more detailed look at three areas we will be watching this year.

1. PFAS Reporting and Liability

Manufacturers will be spending more time thinking about PFAS in 2026. We have been talking about the Toxic Substances Control Act PFAS reporting rule for years, and it is expected to become final early in 2026.

As we previously reported, this rule will require manufacturers to report certain information on PFAS-containing articles going back as far as 2011.

The EPA proposed some important changes to the rule at the end of 2025, including exemptions for de minimis concentrations, imported articles and chemicals used in research and development.

Once the TSCA rule is finalized, it will require manufacturers to report extensive information about PFAS uses, production volumes, byproducts, exposures, and disposal.

In addition to the federal reporting requirement, states are getting in on the action. If your products travel into Minnesota, Minnesota’s sweeping PFAS‑in‑products statute (Amara’s Law) will require you to report products with intentionally added PFAS.

By July 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose product‑specific PFAS details.

By July 1, 2026, manufacturers will be required to disclose product‑specific PFAS details, including the type and amount of the PFAS in the product as well as its purpose or function.

These federal and state reporting obligations create challenges for manufacturers to dive deep into their supply chains in an attempt to gather the required information.

For sectors using PFAS indirectly—such as coatings, plastics, electronics, and molded components—the data‑gathering burden may be significant.

In addition to reporting obligations, investigation and remedial obligations related to PFAS are on the rise.

The EPA plans to maintain CERCLA hazardous‑substance designations for PFOA and PFOS, signaling continued expansion of PFAS‑related cost recovery and cleanup obligations.

That means manufacturers with current or historical PFAS use—or who acquired property with legacy PFAS contamination—will likely face increased risk of enforcement actions or third‑party claims.

2. Water Law Uncertainty: WOTUS and NPDES Permitting Changes

Water regulation remains a challenge for many manufacturers, and 2026 won’t offer much relief.

As my colleagues have previously explained, the continued regulatory back‑and‑forth regarding the definition of Waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act has left manufacturers guessing as to the activities that will trigger Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

This matters because facility expansions, stormwater projects, and wetlands issues all hinge on these key jurisdictional determinations.

Both the EPA and states are tightening oversight of NPDES permitting for indirect discharges.

At the same time, both the EPA and states are tightening oversight of NPDES permitting for indirect discharges.

Manufacturers whose wastewater enters complex conveyance systems, such as municipal treatment systems, may face additional pretreatment, sampling, monitoring, and recordkeeping obligations as regulators try to close gaps in indirect discharge oversight.

Spoiler alert—PFAS are emerging in this context, too.

3. Patchwork of State-Extended Producer Responsibility Laws

For manufacturers selling their products into multiple states, the growing patchwork of packaging EPR laws is quickly becoming a compliance challenge.

A number of states, including Colorado, California, and Minnesota, now have packaging EPR programs, each with different definitions of producer, different covered packaging materials, and different registration and reporting deadlines.

The growing patchwork of packaging EPR laws is quickly becoming a compliance challenge.

And many states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are poised to follow.

The variability in these laws makes it difficult for manufacturers looking to develop a one-size-fits-all approach.

Manufacturers should stay on top of these laws and their requirements in an attempt to develop as streamlined a strategy as possible for compliance.

---

About the author: Megan Baroni is an attorney practicing in Robinson+Cole’s environmental and utilities group.