Dear Governor Inslee,
I am responding to a letter dated January 26, 2016, which I received from Taylor Wonhoff, your Deputy General Counsel. Regarding my Motion for Reconsideration of a proposed fluoridation rule, Mr. Wonhoff says:
As you concede in your motion, state law does not provide for matters of reconsideration. Accordingly, the Governor will not be able to review your motion for reconsideration.
This is an incorrect statement. RCW 34.05.330 does not prohibit you from responding to a motion for reconsideration. It is not that you will “not be able to review” our motion. You simply choose not to do so.
There are four reasons why you have an obligation to respond. First, the Board of Health failed to address all the issues I raised. RCW 34.05.330 says:
Within sixty days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either (a) deny the petition in writing, stating (i) its reasons for the denial, specifically addressing the concerns raised by the petitioner,
The Board of Health failed to address my argument that fluoridation materials of a certainty fail the risk estimation test and therefore does not comply with NSF 60 and therefore may not be used. And there were other arguments which the Board of Health failed to address.
The law in Washington says that fluoridation materials must “comply with” NSF Rule 60. NSF is the trade association which the EPA has authorized to certify fluoridation materials to be safe.
The fluoridation materials currently used to fluoridate most water districts fail the risk estimation test spelled out in NSF Rule 60. Chemicals added may not exceed 10% of the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm, and 10% of 4 ppm is .4 ppm. Fluoridation either adds .7 ppm fluoride, which exceeds 10% of the MCL. Therefore fluoridation materials do not “comply with” NSF Rule 60 and with Washington law. Some 47 states and several provinces and countries have the same rule.
Second, you did the same. You failed to address my argument that fluoridation materials of a certainty fail the risk estimation test and therefore to not comply with NSF 60 and therefore may not be used. And there were other arguments which you failed to address.
Third, you violated RCW 34.05.330, which says:
The governor shall immediately file notice of the appeal with the code reviser for publication in the Washington state register. … The governor’s response to the appeal shall be published in the Washington state register and copies shall be submitted to the chief clerk of the house of representatives and the secretary of the senate.
You failed to publish a record of my Appeal, your response, and my Motion for Reconsideration in the state register. That is something you should correct.
We are learning from Flint that chlorine, chloramine, and fluorosilicic acid all leach lead from plumbing. The amount of soda ash sufficient to neutralize chlorine (we do not use chloramine in Snohomish and King counties) is insufficient to neutralize the fluorosilicic acid.
Adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water can only increase the amount of lead therein. Adding fluorosilicic acid to drinking water can never decrease the amount of lead therein. Fluoridation always increases lead levels in drinking water. Recall that I pointed out the letter from Tacoma Public Utilities, which confirmed that lead levels dropped almost by half when fluoridation was temporarily halted because of a drought.
Fourth, If you support fluoridation, you therefore support higher than otherwise normal lead levels in drinking water. This is not a wise position to take.
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103