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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This edition highlights:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Look for new editions every month, and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area<\/a> with questions regarding PFAS issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n EPA Addresses How Its PFOS\/PFOA Hazardous Substance Designation Affects Brownfields Program<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Dec. 5, 2025, the EPA released a Frequently Asked Questions page<\/a> clarifying how its designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA affects the agency’s Brownfields and Land Revitalization Program. While the underlying rule remains in litigation, the EPA confirmed that PFOA and PFOS are currently treated as hazardous substances, carrying significant implications for Brownfield site redevelopment. Notably, the designation does not automatically assign legal liability to owners of property with PFOA or PFOS contamination; however, grant recipients must now establish liability protection for any release of these substances at Brownfield sites. This means that All Appropriate Inquiries investigations must now consider conditions indicative of PFOA and PFOS releases when establishing CERCLA liability defenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The designation does not change whether Brownfields grant funding may be used to address PFOA and PFOS contamination \u2014 such funding was already available since these substances previously fell within CERCLA’s definition of \u201cpollutants and contaminants.\u201d However, grant recipients seeking to assess or clean up sites with PFOA or PFOS must now demonstrate they cannot be held potentially liable under CERCLA Section 107 for the contamination. Entities that are potentially responsible parties for PFOA or PFOS contamination remain ineligible for Brownfields Program funding, and grant recipients must comply with \u201ccontinuing obligations\u201d that include stopping any ongoing releases of hazardous substances after acquiring the property. States and Tribal Nations continue to serve as the regulatory authorities overseeing Brownfield site assessments and cleanups, including establishing screening and cleanup levels for PFOA and PFOS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States Petition EPA for Microplastics Monitoring<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Nov. 26, 2025, the governors of New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin and Connecticut jointly submitted a petition to the EPA<\/a> requesting that the agency include microplastics in its Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for drinking water. The petition invokes the Safe Drinking Water Act’s requirement that the EPA include in the UCMR any contaminant recommended by at least seven states, unless doing so would preclude monitoring of a contaminant presenting a higher public health concern. The states cite widespread presence of microplastics in drinking water, emerging evidence of health risks \u2014 particularly for children \u2014 and the need for a unified federal framework to standardize definitions, analytical methods and monitoring protocols. The petition emphasizes that microplastics can serve as vectors for toxic chemicals, including PFAS and heavy metals, potentially leading to bioaccumulation through ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The EPA\u2019s response to the petition remains uncertain given practical constraints on the UCMR. The statutory maximum for contaminants monitored under the rule is 30, and the current UCMR 5 already includes 29 PFAS compounds plus lithium. Consequently, the EPA would need to determine that microplastics present a higher public health concern than any currently listed PFAS or lithium to add them to the monitoring program. If the agency declines to include microplastics in UCMR 6, individual states could pursue independent regulatory action, though this would likely result in inconsistent definitions and testing methodologies the petition warns against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Connecticut\u2019s PFAS Product Labeling Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Dec. 1, 2025, Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued an order approving specific words and phrases for PFAS product labeling<\/a>, effective July 1, 2026. Under the state\u2019s statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 22a-903c), any new apparel, carpet or rug, cookware, cleaning product, cosmetic product, dental floss, fabric treatment, juvenile product, menstruation product, textile furnishing, ski wax or upholstered furniture that contains intentionally added PFAS must be labeled or will be barred from sale in Connecticut. The approved labeling language includes phrases such as \u201cContains PFAS,\u201d \u201cMade with PFAS,\u201d \u201cMade with PFAS chemicals,\u201d \u201cMade with intentionally added PFAS,\u201d or \u201cThis product contains PFAS chemicals.\u201d The labeling requirement extends to physical products, packaging and online listings, and if a covered product is a component of another product, that containing product must also be labeled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The July 2026 labeling deadline coincides with Connecticut\u2019s deadline for manufacturers of covered products containing intentionally added PFAS to notify the DEEP of the presence of PFAS in those items. Notably, this labeling requirement is a transitional measure leading to a full sales ban on covered products with intentionally added PFAS, which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2028.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New Mexico\u2019s PFAS Product Labeling Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) has proposed regulations<\/a> to implement the state\u2019s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act, with labeling requirements set to take effect Jan. 1, 2027. The NMED\u2019s proposed rules would require all new products containing intentionally added PFAS to bear labels, regardless of whether such products are covered by the state\u2019s phased-sales ban or have received a Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) determination or exemption. Labels must inform consumers in English and Spanish that the product contains intentionally added PFAS, be clearly visible and legible prior to sale, and include an internet website address or QR code directing consumers to the NMED\u2019s PFAS information page. The first phase of New Mexico\u2019s sales ban will also begin Jan. 1, 2027, covering cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products and firefighting foam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The proposed New Mexico regulations also establish comprehensive reporting requirements, testing protocols and fee structures. Manufacturers must submit detailed information about products containing intentionally added PFAS by Jan. 1, 2027, including PFAS concentration levels, purpose of use and contact information. Initial reporting fees are set at $2,500 and CUU-designation applications require a $5,000 fee. Violations may result in civil penalties of up to $15,000, with penalties of up to $25,000 per day for continued noncompliance following a compliance order. Approved labeling language and symbols are still being finalized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New York Issues New Study Along With Guidance and Draft Policies on PFAS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Dec. 11, 2025, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) unveiled a comprehensive package of measures to address PFAS contamination across the state. DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton announced these initiatives<\/a> as part of the agency\u2019s ongoing PFAS efforts, marking \u201cA Decade of Progress on PFAS\u201d since contamination was first confirmed in Hoosick Falls in 2015. The announcement included new guidance, a completed environmental study, proposed policies open for public comment and the launch of a centralized PFAS information hub at dec.ny.gov\/pfas<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The DEC finalized a Technical and Operational Guidance Series for publicly owned treatment works, which establishes protocols for collecting PFAS data from wastewater treatment plants and recommends track-down programs to identify significant upstream contamination sources. The agency also completed the New York State Rural Background Study, which examined PFAS concentrations in rural soils away from known industrial sources. Results mirrored findings in other northeastern states, with PFOS detected in over 97% of surface soil samples and PFOA found in 76.5%. The DEC said these studies will inform future state cleanup standards for PFAS-impacted sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the proposed policies, draft DMM-7a would mandate PFAS sampling and laboratory analysis for biosolid products such as compost and heat-dried materials, applying to both in-state facilities and entities importing such products. Public comments on this proposal closed Jan. 9, 2026. Additionally, proposed revisions to policy DER-24 would establish new procedures for providing alternate water supplies to private wells affected by PFAS from DEC program sites or spills, with comments accepted until Feb. 10, 2026. Looking ahead, the DEC is also developing regulations to implement New York\u2019s \u201cPFAS in Apparel Law,\u201d with proposed rules anticipated in 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Minnesota\u2019s Published PFAS Reporting System Final Rule<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Dec. 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published final rules<\/a> implementing the state’s comprehensive PFAS reporting program under HF2310, commonly referred to as \u201cAmara’s Law.\u201d This regulation requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit detailed disclosures to the agency by July 1, 2026 \u2014 six months later than originally anticipated. The program covers a wide array of information, including product descriptions with numeric product codes (such as UPCs or SKUs), identification of specific PFAS chemicals by name and CAS Registry Number, concentration ranges, and the function PFAS serves in each product or component. The MPCA also made its new reporting portal<\/a> available to manufacturers in January 2026, with non-confidential submissions published publicly on an ongoing basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Minnesota’s framework is notably more rigorous than the federal PFAS reporting program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The state employs a broader definition of PFAS and focuses on current and future uses of these chemicals rather than historical uses, as the federal program does. Additionally, the final rules retain a \u201cstrict due diligence\u201d standard requiring manufacturers to collect information from their supply chains \u201cuntil all required information is known.\u201d In response to an administrative law judge\u2019s concerns about the original fee proposal, the MPCA revised the cost structure: the initial report fee was reduced to $800 (from $1,000), annual recertification requirements were eliminated and fees for voluntary updates were waived entirely. The final rules also incorporate additional flexibility through group reporting options, permissible PFAS concentration ranges and procedures for requesting waivers, extensions and trade-secret protections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For additional information regarding Minnesota\u2019s PFAS regulation see the May<\/a>, June<\/a>, August<\/a>, and October<\/a> editions of Contaminants Compass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n PFAS Drinking Water Cases Resume<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Litigation in the D.C. Circuit over the EPA\u2019s PFAS drinking water standards has resumed after an abeyance triggered by the October 2025 appropriations lapse. The underlying dispute stems from the EPA\u2019s September 2025 motion requesting that the court set aside portions of the rule \u2014 specifically, the regulatory determinations and MCLs for PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA and the hazard-index mixture (the Index PFAS) \u2014 while leaving the PFOA\/PFOS standards intact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In early December 2025, the EPA submitted a reply brief in support of its vacatur request and opposing intervenor Buxmont Coalition for Safe Water and Natural Resources Defense Council\u2019s effort to expand its merits briefing. The EPA\u2019s reply urges the D.C. Circuit\u2019s motions panel to resolve a key statutory question first: whether the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates two discrete notice-and-comment rounds \u2014 one for the regulatory determination and another for the proposed rule \u2014 before a final rule can issue. The agency has disclaimed any harmless error defense, asserting that the omitted procedural step constitutes a material defect. Petitioners (the American Water Works Association and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies) back the EPA\u2019s position, noting the agency\u2019s May 2025 announcement signaling reconsideration of the Index PFAS standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Dec. 17, 2025, the environmental intervenors filed additional support for leave to file a revised and expanded brief arguing that the EPA\u2019s shift in litigation posture justifies an enlarged brief so they can fully defend the challenged MCLs. They also asked the court to send the vacatur motion to the merits panel, arguing that resolution by the motions panel could fragment related issues across the two panels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For additional information regarding the PFAS drinking-water litigation, see the April<\/a>, May<\/a>, September<\/a>, and November<\/a> 2025 editions of Contaminants Compass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keep an eye out for updates soon, as McGuireWoods\u2019 popular Contaminants Compass CLE series<\/a> will be back in March.<\/p>\n\n\n\nI. Federal Regulatory<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
II. State Regulatory<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
III. Litigation<\/h6>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n