PFAS in 2026: What’s New in New York? 

In our last post, we highlighted the PFAS Actions touted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in its report: A Decade of Progress on PFAS. In this post, we highlight planned and proposed PFAS actions coming from DEC and the New York State legislature. It’s still early days, but here’s a rundown of actions in progress that may have a significant impact on our New York clients. 

PFAS in New York Drinking Water 

Senate Bill S3207A would significantly tighten New York’s enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water by setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) at no higher than 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS and 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. Except for the incorporation of the Hazard Index for certain PFAS, this legislation closely tracks the federal PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) that U.S. EPA finalized in 2024. 

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, state drinking water standards must meet or exceed federal primary drinking water requirements. S3207A would satisfy that obligation if the proposed NPDWR revisions are enacted. However, there has been significant legal pushback against vacating the existing MCLs and Hazard Index; if that pushback succeeds and the current federal standards remain in place, S3207A would not meet the Safe Drinking Water Act requirement. Because federal law has primacy in setting minimum national drinking water protections, New York water systems could not rely on S3207A to the extent it conflicts with or falls below existing federal NPDWR provisions. 

Need to learn more about the Hazard Index? Watch our on-demand webinar: Unlock PFAS Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) Insights – What, When, and How. 

PFAS in New York Private Wells 

PFAS in New York private wells is becoming a higher priority as the state recognizes that contamination is not limited to public systems or sites with obvious industrial sources. Looking forward, the DEC’s PFAS progress report points to a new pilot program that will offer financial assistance to private well owners in communities with high PFAS prevalence so they can test their wells and implement appropriate treatment or remediation measures. The pilot is expected to focus first on areas where existing sampling data show clusters of contaminated private wells and where residents are most reliant on groundwater. 

At the same time, DEC’s Division of Environmental Remediation is proposing revisions to its “Assistance for Contaminated Water Supplies” guidance (DER-24) to clarify when the state will step in to provide alternate water supplies for households served by private wells. The draft policy explains how DEC will define an Area of Interest, interpret initial PFAS drinking water results, and decide when to select, implement, and eventually discontinue an alternate water source such as bottled water or a point-of-entry treatment system. These proposed revisions recognize that PFAS in private wells may arise from non-point sources like wastewater, leachate, septic systems, and runoff, not just a single spill or facility, and aim to provide more consistent support for affected well owners across the state.​ 

Public comments on the DER-24 draft policy and the associated alternate water guidance will be accepted until February 10, 2026, giving communities, well owners, and water professionals an opportunity to help shape how New York responds when private wells are impacted by PFAS. 

New York Seeks to Monitor PFAS in Wastewater Discharge 

The Senate and Assembly versions of the “PFAS Discharge Disclosure Act” (S4574A/A5832A) would require certain New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit holders to monitor for PFAS discharges and disclose those results to the state. While this conceptually aligns with the U.S. EPA’s approach to NPDES permitting, this legislation would codify these requirements into state law.  

As drafted, the legislation even goes a bit further stating that every “covered industrial discharger or POTW” applying for a new SPDES permit has to submit projected or estimated PFAS monitoring results as part of the application, and then conduct quarterly PFAS sampling for one year once the discharge begins, with the first actual results due within 90 days of when the discharge starts.  

New York Looks to Expand Bans on PFAS in Consumer Goods 

As discussed in the last post, New York has already enacted bans on PFAS in apparel in 2025, with phased-in bans on PFAS in outdoor apparel and gear going into effect in 2027 and 2028.  

Assembly Bill A7738 would expand New York’s PFAS product controls by phasing out the sale of a broad range of “covered products” that contain regulated PFAS, including architectural paint; several categories of cleaning products (air care, automotive, general cleaners, floor care); cookware; fabric treatments; rugs; ski wax; and a wide array of textiles and textile articles such as non-wearable textiles, outdoor apparel, and certain personal protective equipment.  

The bill defines “regulated PFAS” as PFAS that are intentionally added or present at or above a total organic fluorine level that DEC will establish by regulation as the lowest feasible level, subject to review at least every five years. Manufacturers would also be required to certify that their products offered in the state are PFAS-free at or below specified thresholds.  

To date, only two states have enacted bans on PFAS as measured in total organic fluorine (TOF): California and Vermont. More states are looking at the use of TOF to cast a wider net on potentially hazardous contaminants in consumer products. However, the use of TOF as a measure of PFAS can raise significant concerns. Here are a couple of the questions we frequently hear from clients and partners: 

Q: What can testing for Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) tell you about PFAS content? 

TOF analysis measures the total amount of organically bound fluorine in a sample, providing a bulk indicator of whether fluorinated chemicals, including PFAS, are present and at roughly what concentration. Because all PFAS contain at least one carbon-fluorine bond, TOF results can flag products or materials that may warrant more detailed, compound-specific PFAS analysis or supply-chain review.   

However, TOF has important  limitations in that it does not identify which PFAS (or other organic fluorinated chemicals) are present and cannot quantify individual PFAS. TOF results can also be influenced by non-PFAS compounds, such as certain pharmaceuticals or other fluorinated additives, so a high TOF result does not automatically mean PFAS are present.  

Q: How reliable are TOF test results? 

As noted in the previous answer, TOF results can include non-PFAS compounds, such as certain pharmaceuticals or other fluorinated additives. TOF methods also tend to have higher detection limits (often at the ppm level) than targeted LC-MS/MS PFAS methods, making them less suitable for demonstrating compliance with low-level regulatory limits and better suited as a screening or complementary tool. 

If you have additional questions on analyzing TOF or individual contaminants in consumer goods, reach out to us. One of our PFAS testing experts would be happy to help. 

Additional Resources: 

On-demand webinar: Navigating PFAS in Drinking Water: Treatability Insights and Analytical Overview 

Should Private Wells be Tested for PFAS? 

How Can Pace® Help? 

Pace® helps clients navigate the changing PFAS landscape from both technical and regulatory angles. With accredited laboratories, validated methods, and experience supporting New York–specific requirements, we work with utilities, manufacturers, and property owners to design sampling plans, interpret complex data, and align testing programs with upcoming state and federal rules. Whether you need to evaluate PFAS in products, understand potential liabilities, or build a defensible compliance strategy, Pace® can provide end-to-end support, from initial screening through ongoing monitoring and reporting. 

Contact Pace®