As the world grapples with the staggering costs to human health and the global economy arising from decades of contamination of human drinking water supplies with per- and polyfluoroalkylated substances (“PFAS”), it is sobering to realize how close we had actually come to filtering the bulk of these “forever chemicals” out of our nation’s drinking water almost 50 years ago: but lost that opportunity after the most basic information about the very existence of these toxins in our environment was withheld and covered up. In particular, I am referring to a proposal by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) back in 1978 that would have required installation of the same type of public water filtration systems that are now being installed globally to filter the most prevalent PFAS out of our drinking water; but which ultimately was scrapped by the Agency before the EPA and the public were ever told these PFAS were in our water.

Although the first PFAS chemicals were invented in the United States around the time of World War II, and were being used and released into the environment in massive quantities by the late 1970s, EPA and the rest of the public were not told what was known about the toxic effects of these completely man-made organic chemicals or the extent of the population being exposed to them, including through drinking water, until decades later. Nevertheless, by February of 1978, EPA was already seeing very troubling scientific evidence of serious risks to human health, including cancer, arising from the presence of the mix of “synthetic organic contaminants” that already were in the nation’s drinking water, even if EPA could not identify what each of those specific chemicals were at the time. Thus, in an effort to prioritize protection of public health and hopefully prevent further harm before it occurred, EPA recommended that public water systems install granular activated carbon (“GAC”) filtration systems to begin immediately removing the mix of synthetic organic contaminants, even though the full nature and extent of the threat was not yet confirmed, the specific chemicals causing the harm were not yet identified, and it might take much more time to definitively prove the public health impacts.

Some of EPA’s findings and conclusions back in 1978 are particularly prescient, given what we now know about certain PFAS, particularly PFOA and PFOS, being among the synthetic organic contaminants that have been present in our nation’s drinking water for many decades. As EPA explained, “[c]onclusive proof of an adverse effect is not a prerequisite to regulation [under the Safe Drinking Water Act]. This is particularly important with respect to the Agency’s authority to control organic chemicals in drinking water since these chemicals are most often found in only very small amounts. Even at these low levels, however, they are believed to pose a significant health risk to consumers of drinking water as a result of long-term exposure. Particularly, there is evidence to suggest that such exposure may increase the risk of human cancer and other chronic effects. Thus, although it is not possible to quantify the harm caused by these chemicals, the Administrator has determined, based upon the toxicological and epidemiological data presently available, that the presence of organic chemicals in drinking water may have an adverse effect on human health and therefore should be controlled.” (43 Fed. Reg. (Vol. 28) 5756, 5758 (Feb. 9, 1978).) EPA, therefore, concluded back in February of 1978 that, “it is necessary to proceed with efforts to reduce the level of organic chemicals in drinking water in the earliest feasible timeframe. Such controls take time to implement and it would not be prudent to delay the imposition of controls while the means are available.” (Id. at 5759.)

The control EPA recommended was GAC for the larger public water systems, nationwide: “EPA has concluded that synthetic organic contaminants in drinking water constitute a public health concern and that the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) in the treatment process to reduce human exposure to these chemicals where they occur is a reasonable preventive measure. We believe that the mainstream of thinking within the scientific community will support EPA’s conclusions. Since it is unlikely that the uncertainties in interpreting the toxicological data will be resolved in the near future, regulatory action to reduce these apparent risks using the best technology presently available, GAC, is deemed warranted at the present time.” (Id. at 5769.) “[B]ased upon what we presently know about these chemicals that have been identified and for which toxicological data are available, there is sufficient reason to believe that the presence of synthetic organic chemicals in drinking water, both those we can currently measure and those which may be identified in the future, pose a risk to human health. Moreover, it is likely that this risk may be heightened by the potential for synergistic effects among the many chemicals known to be, and which may be, present in drinking water.” (Id.)

Ultimately, EPA’s proposed rule to require GAC nationwide was never finalized. There were numerous objections at the time, focused primarily upon the potential cost of such treatment and the perceived lack of  sufficient evidence that any of these synthetic organic chemicals could actually cause real harm to people drinking them. By January 1981, the proposed GAC rule had been withdrawn. (See 46 Fed. Reg. (Vol. 9) 3480-82 (Jan. 14, 1981). Yet, EPA was never alerted to the presence of PFAS within the mix of “synthetic organic compounds” they were studying in the late 1970s, or the health risks associated with those man-made chemicals, until decades later. By that point, the entire country – and world – had suffered through decades of additional exposures and the associated public health impacts. Tragically, we now know that, if the type of GAC originally recommended by EPA 48 years ago had been mandated across the country, we might have been able to significantly reduce this damage. After all, we now know that one of the most effective treatment methods for removing two of the most prevalent and toxic PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) is GAC. One can only wonder how much disease could have been reduced – and lives saved – if EPA had been fully informed of the PFAS threat at the time and had followed through on its original proposal. What is clear, however, is the important lesson here for public health: to seize those opportunities to prevent harm when the warning signs of toxic exposures first appear, as the ultimate costs of waiting or delaying may ultimately be far greater than anyone can imagine.