About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

23 Appalachian J.L. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/appalwj23 and id is 1 raw text is: Meredith Waugh, The Forever Chemical: Man's Greatest Achievement or Greatest Horror?, 23 APPALACHIAN JOURNAL OF LAW 1 (2025). ARTICLES The Forever Chemical: Man's Greatest Achievement or Greatest Horror? Meredith Waugh, Juris Doctorate' 1 Appalachian School of Law Keywords: Major Questions Doctrine, PFA Appalachian Journal of Law Vol. 23, Issue 1, 2025 Forever Chemicals or PFAs are found in common household items that we use every day. Studies have also found PFAs in the water, soil, the air, and our bodies. PFAs are called forever chemicals because they are extremely resistant to breaking down in a natural environment. The government has known for years that PFAs are dangerous to public health and the environment but has done little to stop production of PFAs or initiate clean-up of known contamination sites. This article will explore the EPA's attempt to regulate PFAs through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TCSA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). It will also examine the effect of the Major Questions Doctrine on the implementation of these regulations. This article will discuss two ongoing cases and two previous cases regarding PFAs. The first case involves a class action suit filed by firefighters exposed to PFAs while using foam created with PFAs to fight fires. The second case is a class action suit involving the discharge of perfluorinated compounds into the local water supply in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The monumental case that brought the dangers of PFAs to the public's attention is a case initiated by a farmer in West Virginia. Wilbur Tenant filed a lawsuit against Dupont because of the odd manner in which his cows were dying. His farm was located in proximity to a facility owned by Dupont. The parties settled this case in 2004, and it was the first time a chemical creator was held accountable for damages related to PFA contamination. In South Carolina, chemical companies settled a lawsuit for claims arising from contaminated water with local water utilities. As litigations continued, the chemical companies will continue to use the Major Questions Doctrine as a shield to liability for claims arising from damages caused by PFAs. INTRODUCTION This analysis will explore the viability of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulatory attempts of forever chemicals, while also discussing the Major Questions Doctrine and the role it might play when regulations are challenged. While it is not unreasonable to think an agency could regulate a dangerous chemical- that is not always the case, and sometimes the process takes a more careful approach. Sometimes, the more careful approach is straightforward by agencies publishing rules; other times, it is riddled with litigation and strife. This analysis will examine the EPA using this through the lens of the Major Questions Doctrine. The EPA, under the stewardship of the current director, Micheal Regan, laid out its approach to

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most