Monthly newsletter Material Concerns: Legal Updates on Substances of Emerging Concern keeps clients informed on the latest legal, regulatory and scientific developments related to substances of emerging concern. Each issue delivers concise, actionable insights to help companies navigate the evolving landscape of environmental law.

EPA Publishes Battery Recycling Best Practices Report, Federal EPR Framework to Follow

By Joseph Zaleski
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a report to Congress addressing best practices for battery collection, recycling, labeling and consumer education that states, tribes and local governments may implement. Required by the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Pub. L. No. 117–58, 135 Stat. 429, the report focuses on approaches EPA considers technically and economically feasible, safe and environmentally sound, and optimal for ultimate recovery of critical minerals, metals and other valuable materials derived through recycling. 

EPA’s report addresses recycling best practices for a variety of battery formats, including small-format consumer electric and portable batteries, mid-format batteries (including batteries used for electric bikes, power tools/other outdoor power equipment, and portable power stations), vehicle lead-acid batteries, large-format vehicle batteries, and stationary storage large-format batteries. This analysis builds on EPA’s work in recent years to host dedicated technical and government working sessions with key stakeholders across different battery formats.

The report also catalogs the status of state-level extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws and battery collection frameworks for each of these battery types. EPR programs shift the primary managerial and financial responsibility for the entire product life cycle, including end-of-life waste management or recycling requirements, from governments to product manufacturers. EPA’s report notes that a growing number of jurisdictions have adopted EPR frameworks for batteries and electronics, contributing to an increasingly complex and fragmented compliance environment for companies operating across multiple states. According to EPA, eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of legislative battery and electronics waste EPR frameworks so far, two states have enacted battery-only EPR legislative frameworks, and 16 states have enacted electronics EPR laws.
EPA also indicates that it is working with the Department of Energy, as required by the IIJA, to develop a federal voluntary EPR framework for all battery types. EPA’s webpage on this work suggests, however, that large format electric vehicle batteries may be excluded in this initial framework proposal. EPA expects to publish its voluntary EPR framework in calendar year 2026 to cover battery recycling goals, mandatory recycling cost structures, reporting requirements, product design, and a variety of collection models.  Rather than supplanting the existing patchwork of operative state-level battery and e-waste EPR laws, this forthcoming federal voluntary EPR framework will likely identify best practices and suggestions in an effort to influence future state legislation and shape producer compliance strategies nationwide. Companies that manufacture, distribute or sell battery-containing products should expect continued expansion of EPR requirements and increasing pressure to harmonize compliance across jurisdictions.

Pennsylvania Bill to Ban PFAS in Consumer Products Advances in Committee 

By Jennifer E. Hackman

Pennsylvania lawmakers have advanced proposed legislation—HB 2145—that would target the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in common consumer products. The bill received a unanimous committee vote in late April, reflecting an ongoing trend among states to move toward regulating PFAS at the product level in the absence of comprehensive federal standards.

Introduced on January 15, 2026, HB 2145 would amend Title 12 (Commerce and Trade) to establish new consumer protection provisions prohibiting the intentional use of PFAS in specified product categories. If enacted, the legislation would apply to “covered products,” including cosmetics, dental floss, menstrual products and juvenile products, and would authorize enforcement by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 

Although the bill has not yet been enacted, its advancement highlights the growing momentum of state-level PFAS regulation, particularly where federal action remains limited or evolving. Pennsylvania’s proposed legislation mirrors similar laws enacted or proposed in California, Vermont and other states where PFAS regulation has expanded from environmental contamination into consumer product restrictions.

Committee proceedings indicate broad bipartisan support for the proposed Pennsylvania measure. During the hearing, members characterized PFAS as persistent chemicals associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, and the bill was presented as a targeted measure focusing on high-contact products. The measure advanced through the committee proceedings without recorded opposition, including via voice vote in committee discussion. 

Despite unanimous committee approval for the proposed Pennsylvania legislation, stakeholder feedback reflects familiar fault lines in PFAS regulation debates. A memorandum submitted by the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry urged lawmakers to oppose the bill, citing concerns about:

• Broad statutory definitions that could capture unintended products
• Compliance burdens across complex supply chains
• Expansion of liability exposure under consumer protection law
• Divergence from federal and multi-state regulatory frameworks

These issues echo arguments raised in other jurisdictions, particularly with respect to how states define “intentionally added PFAS” and the evidentiary burden placed on manufacturers.

Following committee approval, HB 2145 received first consideration in the Pennsylvania House. Although subsequently tabled on April 28, 2026, the bill remains eligible for further action during the session.

Key next steps include:

• Potential removal from the table and scheduling for House floor debate
• Possible amendments addressing definitional scope or compliance mechanisms
• Continued stakeholder engagement, particularly from industry groups and environmental organizations

For regulated entities and litigants, the Pennsylvania bill underscores several trends:

• Expansion of potential PFAS liability beyond contamination into product composition
• Increasing reliance on consumer protection statutes for enforcement
• Growing divergence among state regulatory regimes

As Pennsylvania joins a growing list of states considering similar legislation, stakeholders should anticipate continued activity in both legislative and litigation arenas. 

Connecticut Previews PFAS Reporting Form Ahead of July Deadline

By Kate Klaus

Connecticut’s PFAS reporting requirement takes effect on July 1, 2026. The law requires manufacturers of certain consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS to disclose detailed information about their use of these substances. Covered products that are not reported will be barred from sale and distribution in the state.

Ahead of the upcoming deadline, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has released a preview of its reporting form. 

The form calls for manufacturers to provide information on covered products or product categories containing intentionally added PFAS, including:

• Manufacturer information
• A brief product description
• The amount of each PFAS or PFAS subgroup present
• The range of PFAS by percent weightIf no analytical method exists to determine PFAS quantities, the total fluorine content
• The relevant product component, if applicable
• The function or purpose of the PFAS and
• Chemical abstract service registry numbers, if applicable, or the molecular formulas and weights for the PFAS. 

Manufacturers may request that submitted information be treated as a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information, which would exempt it from disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

According to DEEP, the form is being shared early for informational purposes and may not yet be used for submissions. A final version that can be completed and submitted will be released ahead of the reporting deadline.

The disclosure requirements apply to the following categories of consumer products:

• Apparel
• Carpets or rugs
• Cleaning products
• Cookware
• Cosmetic products
• Dental floss
• Fabric treatments
• Juvenile products
• Menstruation products
• Textile furnishings
• Ski wax and
• Upholstered furniture

In addition to reporting, these product categories will be subject to labeling requirements beginning July 1, 2026. DEEP has approved several phrases for use in labeling, including “Contains PFAS,” “Made with PFAS,” “Made with PFAS chemicals,” “Made with intentionally added PFAS,” and “This product contains PFAS chemicals.” Manufacturers may also petition the agency to approve alternative wording or symbols.

With the July 1, 2026, deadline approaching, manufacturers should be preparing to compile product and chemical data, assess potential confidentiality claims, and ensure that both reporting and labeling requirements can be satisfied.

Environmental Practice Attorneys to Present on PFAS at Shook's Update of the Law CLE

Shook Partner Jennifer E. Hackman and Associate Kate Klaus will present “PFAS 101: What You Should Know” during the firm’s annual Update of the Law free CLE event on Tuesday, June 9. This session breaks down the top compliance, cost and reputational concerns industry is navigating right now. Register today.