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.
This edition highlights:
- The EPA’s recent guidance on how its designation of PFOS and PFOA as CERCLA hazardous substances will impact the Brownfields Program;
- The petition of several states to the EPA to include microplastics in the EPA’s Sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 6) for drinking water;
- Updates on PFAS regulations in Connecticut, New York, Minnesota and New Mexico; and
- An update on litigation in the D.C. Circuit regarding EPA’s PFAS standards for drinking water.
Look for new editions every month, and feel free to reach out to the McGuireWoods PFAS & Emerging Contaminants Practice Area with questions regarding PFAS issues.
I. Federal Regulatory
EPA Addresses How Its PFOS/PFOA Hazardous Substance Designation Affects Brownfields Program
On Dec. 5, 2025, the EPA released a Frequently Asked Questions page 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.
The designation does not change whether Brownfields grant funding may be used to address PFOA and PFOS contamination — such funding was already available since these substances previously fell within CERCLA’s definition of “pollutants and contaminants.” 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 “continuing obligations” 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.
States Petition EPA for Microplastics Monitoring
On Nov. 26, 2025, the governors of New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Wisconsin and Connecticut jointly submitted a petition to the EPA 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 — particularly for children — 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.
The EPA’s 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.
II. State Regulatory
Connecticut’s PFAS Product Labeling Requirement
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, effective July 1, 2026. Under the state’s statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 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 “Contains PFAS,” “Made with PFAS,” “Made with PFAS chemicals,” “Made with intentionally added PFAS,” or “This product contains PFAS chemicals.” 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.
The July 2026 labeling deadline coincides with Connecticut’s 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.
New Mexico’s PFAS Product Labeling Requirement
The New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED) has proposed regulations to implement the state’s Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances Protection Act, with labeling requirements set to take effect Jan. 1, 2027. The NMED’s proposed rules would require all new products containing intentionally added PFAS to bear labels, regardless of whether such products are covered by the state’s 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’s PFAS information page. The first phase of New Mexico’s sales ban will also begin Jan. 1, 2027, covering cookware, food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products and firefighting foam.
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.
New York Issues New Study Along With Guidance and Draft Policies on PFAS
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 as part of the agency’s ongoing PFAS efforts, marking “A Decade of Progress on PFAS” 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.
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.
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’s “PFAS in Apparel Law,” with proposed rules anticipated in 2026.
Minnesota’s Published PFAS Reporting System Final Rule
On Dec. 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) published final rules implementing the state’s comprehensive PFAS reporting program under HF2310, commonly referred to as “Amara’s Law.” This regulation requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit detailed disclosures to the agency by July 1, 2026 — 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 available to manufacturers in January 2026, with non-confidential submissions published publicly on an ongoing basis.
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 “strict due diligence” standard requiring manufacturers to collect information from their supply chains “until all required information is known.” In response to an administrative law judge’s 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.
For additional information regarding Minnesota’s PFAS regulation see the May, June, August, and October editions of Contaminants Compass.
III. Litigation
PFAS Drinking Water Cases Resume
Litigation in the D.C. Circuit over the EPA’s PFAS drinking water standards has resumed after an abeyance triggered by the October 2025 appropriations lapse. The underlying dispute stems from the EPA’s September 2025 motion requesting that the court set aside portions of the rule — specifically, the regulatory determinations and MCLs for PFNA, PFHxS, HFPO-DA and the hazard-index mixture (the Index PFAS) — while leaving the PFOA/PFOS standards intact.
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’s effort to expand its merits briefing. The EPA’s reply urges the D.C. Circuit’s motions panel to resolve a key statutory question first: whether the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates two discrete notice-and-comment rounds — one for the regulatory determination and another for the proposed rule — 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’s position, noting the agency’s May 2025 announcement signaling reconsideration of the Index PFAS standards.
On Dec. 17, 2025, the environmental intervenors filed additional support for leave to file a revised and expanded brief arguing that the EPA’s 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.
For additional information regarding the PFAS drinking-water litigation, see the April, May, September, and November 2025 editions of Contaminants Compass.
Keep an eye out for updates soon, as McGuireWoods’ popular Contaminants Compass CLE series will be back in March.