HLTH 8034 Week 9 PFOS Jurisdiction Analysis Example

Course	HLTH 8034 Environmental Health: Local to Global
Week	Week 9
Paper type	Jurisdiction analysis
Length	About 860 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 8034 Week 9

Jurisdiction Analysis: PFOS From Airport Firefighting Foam Across Groundwater, Two States' Wells and a Stream's Fish, and Why the Contaminant Outruns Every Mandate on the Map

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 8034: Environmental Health: Local to Global

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title lists the compartments the contaminant reaches and states the finding about divided authority, so the matrix that follows has a claim to test.

Jurisdiction Analysis: PFOS From Airport Firefighting Foam Across Groundwater, Two States' Wells and a Stream's Fish, and Why the Contaminant Outruns Every Mandate on the Map

The Case

For decades, firefighters at a composite regional airport trained with and stored aqueous film-forming foam containing perfluorooctane sulfonate, PFOS, and related compounds. The foam soaked into soil around the training pit and reached the aquifer below, which supplies public water systems on both sides of a state line between two composite states, Merrow and Dunlin. Groundwater discharges to Fenn Creek, where residents fish. Contamination of this pattern is well documented nationally: detections of PFAS in U.S. drinking water supplies were associated with proximity to industrial sites, military fire training areas and other places where foam was used (Hu et al., 2016). This analysis maps who holds authority over each place the contaminant goes, what that authority allows, and whose toxicity assessment each body relies on. It concerns PFOS rather than PFAS as a class because the regulatory and toxicity record for PFOS is the most developed, which makes the gaps easier to see.

What this page is doingRows follow the contaminant's path, so the matrix tests whether authority keeps up with the chemical.

The Matrix

Table 1

Authority Over PFOS by Compartment

Compartment	Body with authority	What it can require	Toxicity basis relied on \|
Foam as used and stored at the airport	Federal aviation regulator for firefighting requirements at certificated airports; airport operator	Which agents meet firefighting performance requirements; the operator decides storage and training practice	None; aviation rules address fire safety, not toxicity \|
Soil and groundwater beneath the airport	Merrow's environmental agency under state cleanup law; federal environmental agency under the federal cleanup law since PFOS was designated a hazardous substance	Investigation, cleanup and cost recovery from responsible parties	Federal toxicity assessment; Merrow's own groundwater value \|
Public water systems in Merrow	Merrow's drinking water program, enforcing state and federal rules	Monitoring and treatment to meet Merrow's own state value now and the federal limit when it takes effect	Merrow's state assessment \|
Public water systems in Dunlin	Dunlin's drinking water program, enforcing federal rules only	Monitoring now; treatment once the federal limit takes effect	Federal assessment \|
Fish in Fenn Creek	Each state's health department for consumption advisories; neither regulates sport-caught fish as food	Advice to anglers, not limits on the catch	Each state's own advisory method \|

Five compartments, at least six bodies, three toxicity bases and no single authority over the whole path.

Walking the Gaps

From the Airport to the Ground

The airport's foam use answers to the aviation regulator, whose concern is putting out aircraft fires. The rules that long specified foam performance were written for fire safety, and the regulator does not assess what a foam does to groundwater. Once the foam leaves the pit, authority passes to environmental agencies that never had a say in its use. The federal environmental agency designated PFOS a hazardous substance under its cleanup law in 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 39124), which strengthens the hand of cleanup authorities but arrives decades after the release.

Across the State Line

The aquifer ignores the border; the rules do not. Merrow set its own drinking water value for PFOS before federal action, based on its own toxicity assessment, and its systems must already treat water that exceeds it. Dunlin adopted no state value and relies on the federal assessment and the national drinking water regulation finalized in 2024, which set a maximum contaminant level for PFOS but gave water systems years to comply (89 Fed. Reg. 32532). Until then, two households drawing from the same aquifer a mile apart may receive water held to different standards, one treated and one not, solely because of where the state line runs.

Into the Fish

The fish compartment is where authority runs thinnest. No agency limits PFOS in fish that anglers catch for themselves; state health departments can only advise. Merrow and Dunlin use different methods to set advisories, so the same creek can carry different advice depending on which bank an angler stands on. The gap matters because fish can be a major route: a national analysis of freshwater fish fillets found PFOS dominant among the perfluorinated compounds measured and concluded that eating locally caught fish could be a significant source of exposure (Barbo et al., 2023).

Borrowed Assessments

A quieter gap lies in the last column. Only Merrow produced its own toxicity assessment; every other body borrows one, usually the federal assessment. Borrowing is efficient, but it means that a revision to one federal document can change obligations across several compartments at once, and that the bodies relying on it had no part in writing it.

The Argument

The contaminant's movement outruns every mandate on the map. Each body acts within its compartment, and most act responsibly. But no body has authority over the path as a whole: the agency that controlled the foam did not consider groundwater, the agencies that can order cleanup arrived after the release, two drinking water programs apply different values to one aquifer, and nobody can do more than advise about the fish. A jurisdiction map drawn by compartment will always show coverage; a map drawn along the contaminant's route shows the seams, and the seams are where people are exposed.

References

Barbo, N., Stoiber, T., Naidenko, O. V., & Andrews, D. Q. (2023). Locally caught freshwater fish across the United States are likely a significant source of exposure to PFOS and other perfluorinated compounds. Environmental Research, 220, Article 115165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115165

Designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as CERCLA hazardous substances, 89 Fed. Reg. 39124 (May 8, 2024).

Hu, X. C., Andrews, D. Q., Lindstrom, A. B., Bruton, T. A., Schaider, L. A., Grandjean, P., Lohmann, R., Carignan, C. C., Blum, A., Balan, S. A., Higgins, C. P., & Sunderland, E. M. (2016). Detection of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in U.S. drinking water linked to industrial sites, military fire training areas, and wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 3(10), 344-350. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00260

PFAS national primary drinking water regulation, 89 Fed. Reg. 32532 (Apr. 26, 2024).

The Walden HLTH 8034 Week 9 instructions

The ninth week asks students to map which bodies hold authority over an environmental contaminant as it moves between places and media. A matrix usually organizes the analysis, with rows for each compartment the contaminant reaches and columns for the responsible body, what it can require and the toxicity assessment it relies on. Accuracy about powers is essential: advisory roles should not be described as regulatory ones. Rows should be complete, since omitted compartments are often where authority runs thinnest. The prose that follows should interpret the matrix, walking the gaps between mandates rather than restating cells. A closing argument states what the map shows about divided authority. Sources include regulations and exposure studies in APA style. Composite sites are acceptable when the powers described are accurate.

How this HLTH 8034 Week 9 example is built

The sample introduces a composite airport whose foam reached an aquifer shared by two states and a creek where residents fish, citing national evidence linking PFAS detections to fire training areas. The matrix covers foam at the airport, soil and groundwater, each state's public water systems and creek fish. The prose explains the hand-off from aviation rules to cleanup authority, the federal hazardous substance designation, the different state and federal drinking water values that leave neighbors under different standards, advisory-only authority over sport fish, supported by a national study of fish fillets, and the quieter dependence on borrowed toxicity assessments. A closing paragraph states the argument.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8034 Week 9 rubric

Accuracy about who can do what is the first thing marked. An analysis that credits a health department with authority it only advises on fails on the very point under test. The matrix is scored for completeness at the row level: omitting the fish or the neighboring state's wells removes the compartments where authority runs thin. Borrowed toxicity assessments are a quieter source of credit that many drafts miss. Interpretation matters more than tabulation, and prose that restates the matrix cell by cell earns little. A clear argument about what the map reveals completes the analysis. Correct citation of regulations and studies is expected.

HLTH 8034 Week 9 help: mistakes that cost marks

Jurisdiction analyses often fall short by listing agencies without saying what each can actually require. Another common problem is leaving out compartments, such as fish or neighboring wells, where no one holds strong authority. Some students also overlook whose toxicity values each body uses. To write a stronger analysis, trace the contaminant's path first and make each stop a row. For each row, name the body, its power and its toxicity basis, checking that advisory roles are labeled as advice. Then write about the gaps between rows. End with what the map shows. If you need a jurisdiction analysis for your own contamination case, our writers can prepare one.

Get a HLTH 8034 Week 9 example written to your instructions

Give the desk the contaminant, the site and the jurisdictions involved, plus the prompt and rubric that Week 9 uses. The analysis, matrix included, comes back in 24-48h, with no charge for a first request. Authorities are described from their own statutes and published guidance; the paper maps powers and leaves reform proposals to you.

More HLTH 8034 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

HLTH 8034 Week 9 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 8034 Week 9 sample paper?

A complete Week 9 jurisdiction analysis of PFOS moving from airport foam into groundwater, two states' water systems and fish, with a matrix and four references, can be read below the facts table.

What does the HLTH 8034 Week 9 matrix record?

For each compartment, the body holding authority, what it can require and whose toxicity assessment it relies on.

Why PFOS rather than PFAS as a whole?

The regulatory and toxicity record for PFOS is the most developed, which makes gaps in authority easier to see.

Does the analysis need to cover international bodies?

Not for this case, which crosses a state line rather than a national border; the same matrix would add treaty bodies where relevant.

Can a real contamination site be used?

Yes, if powers and values are described accurately; the sample uses a composite airport to keep attention on the structure of authority.