FOIA to Everett Water District 10-13-11

This is a first draft. It is under review. It is not quite ready for use.

http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA-to-Everett-Water-District-10-13-2011.doc

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
UNDER THE
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

October 13, 2011

 

Everett Utilities
Attention: Dave Davis, Director
3200 Cedar Street
Everett WA 98201-4516
Sent by fax to:
425-257-8882, 425-257-8729, 425-257-8693, 425-257-8623, 425-257-8691

 

Sent by email to:
everettpw@ci.everett.wa.us; dwilliams@ci.everett.wa.us; jmoore@ci.everett.wa.us; AHatloe@ci.everett.wa.us; saffholter@ci.everett.wa.us; PRoberts@ci.everett.wa.us; rgipson@ci.everett.wa.us; DNielsen@ci.everett.wa.us; BStonecipher@ci.everett.wa.us; cwiersma@ci.everett.wa.us; rramerman@ci.everett.wa.us; kreardon@ci.everett.wa.us

Dear Friends,

 

On July 31, 2008, I sent a previous Request for Documents. See some of those documents here: https://www.box.net/shared/qafp8j8fert8jufrnni0.

 

I want to receive updates on requests I made in 2008 and ask for additional documents, and so I am sending you a new Request for Documents under the Public Records Act.

 

I write on behalf of the following organizations: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com, of which I am president, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com, of which I am vide-president, www.FluorideDetective.com, Medical Doctors Against Fluoridation. and Dentists Against Fluoridation.

 

Introduction: The Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.080, Washington’s version of the federal Freedom of Information Act, requires that all agencies make public records available for copying and provide copies of public documents at a reasonable charge. When I refer to the “agency” or “water district”, I am referring to Everett Utilities and the city of Everett. When I refer to “documents,” I am referring to documents, reports, letters, memos, e-mails, or other writings or photographs or diagrams in the possession of your staff, your experts, or the experts you hire to test Water District drinking water and fluoridation materials; documents and reports you receive or are accessible to you from municipalities, agencies, other jurisdictions, laboratories, and suppliers of fluoridation materials. The term “documents” includes any web sites or documents on web sites which you rely on regarding fluoridation, pipe maintenance, and water treatment in general, including their URL.

 

Please provide the following:

 

1.       Provide: Reports which were done in the process of initiating fluoridation, including but not limited to: requests for construction bids, requests for maintenance bids, construction and maintenance bids and contracts, including advice obtained both for and against fluoridation .

 

2        Regarding the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened, provide: All documents and records which outline the design, construction, contracting to construct, cost of construction, financing of construction, financial assistance  for construction from entities other than the Everett Water District.

 

3        Provide: All documents which show or indicate the ordinary operating cost of the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened.

 

4.       Provide: All documents which show or indicate the cost to maintain and repair the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened.

 

5.       Provide: All documents and records which show and summarize the cost of buying fluoridation supplies, including but not limited to silicofluoride, sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride, sodium hydroxide, soda ash, and other fluoridation related chemicals or additives – since Everett instituted fluoridation.

 

6        Provide: All documents which demonstrate the chemicals added to Everett water before fluoridation was instituted and their costs.

 

7.       Provide: The cover and first few pages of any and all documents or manuals which the Everett Water district possesses which deal with the subject of adding fluoride, alkalizers, aluminum, and any other water treatment chemicals used in conjunction with fluoridation.

 

8.       Provide: The cover and first few pages of the book entitled “NSF/ANSI 60” and any documents indicating when Everett Water District bought or obtained various editions of said document.

 

9.       Provide: Records showing the number of guards guarding the fluoridation facility and the cost to employ them.

 

10.     Provide: Manuals describing the handling of silicofluoride, other fluoridation chemicals, alkalizing agents, aluminum, and other chemicals added to drinking water by Everett Utilities.

 

11.     In my July 2008 Request for Documents (#10 and #11) I asked the following:

 

Provide documents which show the presence of all elements and compounds in raw fluoridation materials, that is assays made of raw fluoridation materials as they come out of the tanker, before they are added to drinking water and are diluted.

 

Note: I am not asking just for results of tests done on the water after fluoridation materials are added, but also tests or assays done on the fluoridation materials themselves before they are added to the water. An assay done on raw fluoridation materials right out of the tanker truck can do a much more accurate job of identifying and quantifying the many elements and chemicals in fluoridation materials. Various reasonably priced tests are sensitive only down to certain concentration levels, so a test done on raw fluoridation materials will reveal trace minerals and chemicals with much greater accuracy than one done on fluoridation materials after they are diluted in drinking water. …

 

Provide documents which would indicate whether there are any trace amounts of aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, radium, radon, polonium, barium, beryllium, thallium, or uranium included in said fluoridation materials and the quantities and concentrations of them.

 

Your response was:

 

Cascade Columbia or LCI are the primary sources for this information. Analysis of a June 2007 delivery was made to trouble shoot a crystallization problem that was occurring in the HFS metering pump. This has been included on the CD-ROM.

 

Steve Deem, an official with the Washington Department of Health (253-395-6767 steve.deem@doh.wa.gov), explained to me that Department of Health regulations do not require that an assay done on the fluoridation materials before they are diluted. This means that Everett Water District is completely dependent on NSF and its fluoride suppliers for detained information as to what contaminants are present in raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor but which are not detectible in drinking water after raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor has been diluted to the point where silicofluoride is under 1 ppm. As I have pointed out, the NSF is highly unreliable when it comes to what is in raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor, given that the NSF contradicts itself. In its February 2008 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals, http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-fact-sheet-on-fluoride-2008.pdf, says:

 

The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.

 

On the other hand, NSF representatives have admitted that NSF neither performs nor obtains any such documentation. See: http://Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

 

The latest Standard 60 fluoride update is dated February, 2008. It does not take into account or even mention the National Research Council 2006 report. It is therefore outdated and cannot be relied on. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

 

The Everett Water District should know what it is adding to water when it adds fluoride scrubber liquor, and because it is relying on the unreliable NSF, it does not.

 

Everett Utilities should perform a full assay of all minerals and compounds contained therein down to the smallest concentration level obtainable, including by spectrographic analysis. I am requesting then a full contaminate analysis including an analysis of radionuclides.

 

Further, the Everett Water District should pay for the full cost of this assay. This is because the agency should already be doing assays of raw fluoridation materials. For the agency not to do such assays on a regular basis is negligent and reckless behavior.

 

So again I ask that you provide: Documents, including but not limited to assays, feedstock analyses, or stock solution analyses, of raw scrubber liquor fluoridation material directly from a fluoride tanker. Take a sample of fluoride scrubber liquor feedstock analysis or stock solution directly from a tanker to the appropriate laboratory. There you should request a full assay be done of all minerals and compounds contained therein down to the smallest concentration level obtainable, including by spectrographic analysis. Provide a full contaminate analysis including an analysis of radionuclides.

 

12.     Since you said that Cascade Columbia and LCI are the primary sources for the above information, provide a letter authorizing Cascade Columbia and LCI to release documents to me answering the previous Request above.

 

13.     Provide documents pertaining to the detection levels of all the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District tests.

 

14.     Provide documents indicating which agencies or organizations set the detection limits for all of the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District performs tests.

 

15.     Provide documents pertaining to the lowest detection level to which it is scientifically possible to assay each of the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District tests.

 

16.     Regarding the elements and compounds for which Everett Water District performs or receives an assay, please provide any documents pertaining to whether Everett Water District should test for lower levels of said elements and compounds than it actually does and what the additional cost would be to test to lower concentrations.

 

17.     Provide: Historical records and any other documents pertaining to previous water sources utilized, the location of purification facilities before construction of the Lake Chaplain facility.

 

18.     Whereas the law says that “public records shall be available for inspection,” and whereas the fluoridation facilities themselves are “public records” in the broadest sense of the term, I am requesting that Everett Utilities make the Lake Chaplain facility open for a tour on or before October 28, 2011. You may expect from ten to fifty guests from our group to tour the facility. We should be allowed to talk with the staff, take pictures, and tape record conversations.

 

19.     Provide any and all correspondence between Everett Water District and the National Sanitation Foundation.

 

20.     Provide any and all correspondence with the CDC, EPA, FDA  or any branch of said agencies regarding fluoridation.

 

21.     Provide documents identifying the commercial source or sources from which your agency purchases or has purchased fluoridation materials since fluoridation began, including the names of companies providing said materials, their addresses, their telephone numbers, their e-mail addresses, and the names of contact persons who represent said companies. It is not necessary to send all documents if they are mostly repetitive. It is acceptable to send a representative sample.

 

22.     Provide documents discussing means of transportation of raw fluoride scrubber liquor by tanker or other means along with documents relating to safety, hazardous materials suits and protective methods, spill prevention, and cleanup.

 

23.     Provide documents identifying the protocol for adding fluoridation materials to drinking water, including but not limited to mixing and dispensing fluoridation materials into drinking water and keeping the fluoridation materials uniformly mixed over time and distance. Provide documents discussing any instances where fluoride content has not been consistent throughout the water system.

 

24.     Provide documents which would indicate whether there are any trace amounts of aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, radium, radon, polonium, barium, beryllium, thallium, or uranium included in said fluoridation materials and the quantities and concentrations of them.

 

25.     Provide documents identifying:

 

a.       the specific materials added to control acidity or pH levels of drinking water,

 

b.       the quantity of such materials added on a daily and monthly basis,

 

c.       where the acidity or pH level is monitored, and

 

d.       the target acidity or pH level to be obtained throughout the water system as a result of adding such materials,

 

e.       the actual acidity or pH level obtained throughout the water system and at different locations as a result of adding such materials,

 

f.        the means by which the acidity or pH level is monitored,

 

g.       how frequently the acidity or pH level is monitored.

 

26.     Provide documents identifying any mechanisms known to the agency by which materials added to lessen acidity of drinking water can be or are precipitated out or rendered less effective at reducing the acidity of the fluoridated water.

 

27.     There are scientific and scholarly reports which conclude that fluoride is harmful to fish or repels fish. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-petition-to-auditor-general-chapter-6-evidence-of-environmental-harm.pdf. Provide documents which address this issue.

 

28.     Provide the written order or prescription in your possession or available to your agency from a medical or other professional which authorizes the Everett Water District to add fluoridation materials to Water District water, and/or which specifies the amount to be added, and/or which specifies the specific fluoridation chemical to be added.

 

29.     Provide the written order or prescription in your possession or available to the Everett Water District from a medical or other professional which grants written assurance to the Water District that the addition of fluoridation materials to the water is safe for the general population and for special populations such as babies and those with thyroid disease, kidney disease, and diabetes.

 

30.     Provide documents identifying agencies, laboratories, or other organizations from which you obtain on an ongoing basis or have obtained in the past or which you now can obtain information pertaining to the requests and questions posed in this document.

 

31.     In the July 2008 Request for Production of Documents, I asked:

 

Provide copies of insurance invoices showing how much the agency paid for insurance for the last two years and provide copies of policies covering the Water District, showing policy limits, endorsements, and exclusions.

 

32.     Please update your response to this question.

 

33.     Identify the company in south Everett or North Edmonds to which Everett Water District runs a pipe which carries untreated water not containing added fluoride.

 

34.     Historical documents, including newspaper clippings and letters written and collected in connection with the fluoride debate when fluoridation was first proposed for Everett and each time it was voted on.

 

35.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use aluminum as a flocculant, the safety of using aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are and their comparative costs.

 

36.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use chloramines as a flocculant, the safety of using aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are and their comparative costs.

 

37.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use some disinfection method other than chlorine such as as ozonation or UV disinfection.

 

38.     Documents relating to the safety of adding aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are.

 

39.     A copy of the Notice of Potential Liability which I sent to Everett Utilities on or about July 15, 2008 and any or response written to it or any memorandum or other documents written in response to it. See the Notice at http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/notice-of-liability-to-everett-7-15-8.htm.

 

40.     In my July 15, 2008, Request for Documents I pointed out:

 

The silicofluroide used by Everett Water District contains lead and leaches lead from lead-brass pipe and fittings and from solder used to weld copper pipe. In light of this fact, provide documents identifying or discussing lead levels in the water system, including lead levels in the school buildings, including buildings built before 1986 when the maximum amount of lead in plumbing materials was lowered.

 

Provide documents identify homes and buildings in the area served by the Water District known to have lead plumbing or plumbing containing lead solder.

 

Provide documents comparing lead levels in raw untreated water, lead levels in fluoridation materials, and lead levels the water in buildings built before and after 1986.

 

Provide documents giving any explanation you may have for why lead levels in water in the pipes in buildings built or after 1986 is or would be higher than in raw water and fluoridation materials. See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/291566_lead08ww.html.

 

Your only answer to these questions was: “Not WFP Document”. This is not an adequate response to such an important question. If Seattle and Everett both are filled with old schools, old houses, old apartment buildings, old commercial buildings, and old factories – most of them containing lead-brass pipes and fittings and lead solder – then Everett is just as likely as Seattle to have lead levels in first draw water in the 1,600 ppb range which was uncovered in Seattle. A prudent person should have done additional studies in response to these questions.

 

There is a wealth of information on this subject as reviewed in this document: http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

 

Therefore, I am asking that you provide any and documents, letters, or memorandums written since July of 2008 on this topic.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law

 

In order to reduce copy costs and save paper and time, I request that the documents sought be provided as much as possible on a CD-ROM, instead of on paper.

 

You may call me at 425-771-1110, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.

 

To make it easier for you to follow the links in this Request, I have posted it at: *

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law

 

 

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

UNDER THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT

October 13, 2011

 

Everett Utilities

Attention: Dave Davis, Director

3200 Cedar Street

Everett WA 98201-4516


Sent by fax to:

425-257-8882, 425-257-8729, 425-257-8693, 425-257-8623, 425-257-8691

 

Sent by email to:

everettpw@ci.everett.wa.us; dwilliams@ci.everett.wa.us; jmoore@ci.everett.wa.us; AHatloe@ci.everett.wa.us; saffholter@ci.everett.wa.us; PRoberts@ci.everett.wa.us; rgipson@ci.everett.wa.us; DNielsen@ci.everett.wa.us; BStonecipher@ci.everett.wa.us; cwiersma@ci.everett.wa.us; rramerman@ci.everett.wa.us; kreardon@ci.everett.wa.us

 

Dear Friends,

 

On July 31, 2008, I sent a previous Request for Documents. See some of those documents here: https://www.box.net/shared/qafp8j8fert8jufrnni0.

 

I want to receive updates on requests I made in 2008 and ask for additional documents, and so I am sending you a new Request for Documents under the Public Records Act.

 

I write on behalf of the following organizations: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com, of which I am president, www.WashingtonSafeWater.com, of which I am vide-president, www.FluorideDetective.com, Medical Doctors Against Fluoridation. and Dentists Against Fluoridation.

 

Introduction: The Public Records Act, RCW 42.56.080, Washington’s version of the federal Freedom of Information Act, requires that all agencies make public records available for copying and provide copies of public documents at a reasonable charge. When I refer to the “agency” or “water district”, I am referring to Everett Utilities and the city of Everett. When I refer to “documents,” I am referring to documents, reports, letters, memos, e-mails, or other writings or photographs or diagrams in the possession of your staff, your experts, or the experts you hire to test Water District drinking water and fluoridation materials; documents and reports you receive or are accessible to you from municipalities, agencies, other jurisdictions, laboratories, and suppliers of fluoridation materials. The term “documents” includes any web sites or documents on web sites which you rely on regarding fluoridation, pipe maintenance, and water treatment in general, including their URL.

 

Please provide the following:

 

1.       Provide: Reports which were done in the process of initiating fluoridation, including but not limited to: requests for construction bids, requests for maintenance bids, construction and maintenance bids and contracts, including advice obtained both for and against fluoridation .

 

2        Regarding the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened, provide: All documents and records which outline the design, construction, contracting to construct, cost of construction, financing of construction, financial assistance  for construction from entities other than the Everett Water District.

 

3        Provide: All documents which show or indicate the ordinary operating cost of the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened.

 

4.       Provide: All documents which show or indicate the cost to maintain and repair the fluoridation facility at Lake Chaplain and at other locations since they were opened.

 

5.       Provide: All documents and records which show and summarize the cost of buying fluoridation supplies, including but not limited to silicofluoride, sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride, sodium hydroxide, soda ash, and other fluoridation related chemicals or additives – since Everett instituted fluoridation.

 

6        Provide: All documents which demonstrate the chemicals added to Everett water before fluoridation was instituted and their costs.

 

7.       Provide: The cover and first few pages of any and all documents or manuals which the Everett Water district possesses which deal with the subject of adding fluoride, alkalizers, aluminum, and any other water treatment chemicals used in conjunction with fluoridation.

 

8.       Provide: The cover and first few pages of the book entitled “NSF/ANSI 60” and any documents indicating when Everett Water District bought or obtained various editions of said document.

 

9.       Provide: Records showing the number of guards guarding the fluoridation facility and the cost to employ them.

 

10.     Provide: Manuals describing the handling of silicofluoride, other fluoridation chemicals, alkalizing agents, aluminum, and other chemicals added to drinking water by Everett Utilities.

 

11.     In my July 2008 Request for Documents (#10 and #11) I asked the following:

 

          Provide documents which show the presence of all elements and compounds in raw fluoridation materials, that is assays made of raw fluoridation materials as they come out of the tanker, before they are added to drinking water and are diluted.

 

          Note: I am not asking just for results of tests done on the water after fluoridation materials are added, but also tests or assays done on the fluoridation materials themselves before they are added to the water. An assay done on raw fluoridation materials right out of the tanker truck can do a much more accurate job of identifying and quantifying the many elements and chemicals in fluoridation materials. Various reasonably priced tests are sensitive only down to certain concentration levels, so a test done on raw fluoridation materials will reveal trace minerals and chemicals with much greater accuracy than one done on fluoridation materials after they are diluted in drinking water. …

 

          Provide documents which would indicate whether there are any trace amounts of aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, radium, radon, polonium, barium, beryllium, thallium, or uranium included in said fluoridation materials and the quantities and concentrations of them.

 

Your response was:

 

Cascade Columbia or LCI are the primary sources for this information. Analysis of a June 2007 delivery was made to trouble shoot a crystallization problem that was occurring in the HFS metering pump. This has been included on the CD-ROM.

 

Steve Deem, an official with the Washington Department of Health (253-395-6767 steve.deem@doh.wa.gov), explained to me that Department of Health regulations do not require that an assay done on the fluoridation materials before they are diluted. This means that Everett Water District is completely dependent on NSF and its fluoride suppliers for detained information as to what contaminants are present in raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor but which are not detectible in drinking water after raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor has been diluted to the point where silicofluoride is under 1 ppm. As I have pointed out, the NSF is highly unreliable when it comes to what is in raw silicofluoride scrubber liquor, given that the NSF contradicts itself. In its February 2008 NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals, http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-fact-sheet-on-fluoride-2008.pdf, says:

 

The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.

 

On the other hand, NSF representatives have admitted that NSF neither performs nor obtains any such documentation. See: http://Fluoride-Class-Action.com/sham.

 

The latest Standard 60 fluoride update is dated February, 2008. It does not take into account or even mention the National Research Council 2006 report. It is therefore outdated and cannot be relied on. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

 

The Everett Water District should know what it is adding to water when it adds fluoride scrubber liquor, and because it is relying on the unreliable NSF, it does not.

 

Everett Utilities should perform a full assay of all minerals and compounds contained therein down to the smallest concentration level obtainable, including by spectrographic analysis. I am requesting then a full contaminate analysis including an analysis of radionuclides.

 

Further, the Everett Water District should pay for the full cost of this assay. This is because the agency should already be doing assays of raw fluoridation materials. For the agency not to do such assays on a regular basis is negligent and reckless behavior.

 

          So again I ask that you provide: Documents, including but not limited to assays, feedstock analyses, or stock solution analyses, of raw scrubber liquor fluoridation material directly from a fluoride tanker. Take a sample of fluoride scrubber liquor feedstock analysis or stock solution directly from a tanker to the appropriate laboratory. There you should request a full assay be done of all minerals and compounds contained therein down to the smallest concentration level obtainable, including by spectrographic analysis. Provide a full contaminate analysis including an analysis of radionuclides.  

 

12.     Since you said that Cascade Columbia and LCI are the primary sources for the above information, provide a letter authorizing Cascade Columbia and LCI to release documents to me answering the previous Request above.

 

13.     Provide documents pertaining to the detection levels of all the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District tests.

 

14.     Provide documents indicating which agencies or organizations set the detection limits for all of the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District performs tests.

 

15.     Provide documents pertaining to the lowest detection level to which it is scientifically possible to assay each of the elements and compounds for which the Everett Water District tests.

 

16.     Regarding the elements and compounds for which Everett Water District performs or receives an assay, please provide any documents pertaining to whether Everett Water District should test for lower levels of said elements and compounds than it actually does and what the additional cost would be to test to lower concentrations.

 

17.     Provide: Historical records and any other documents pertaining to previous water sources utilized, the location of purification facilities before construction of the Lake Chaplain facility.

 

18.     Whereas the law says that “public records shall be available for inspection,” and whereas the fluoridation facilities themselves are “public records” in the broadest sense of the term, I am requesting that Everett Utilities make the Lake Chaplain facility open for a tour on or before October 28, 2011. You may expect from ten to fifty guests from our group to tour the facility. We should be allowed to talk with the staff, take pictures, and tape record conversations.

 

19.     Provide any and all correspondence between Everett Water District and the National Sanitation Foundation.

 

20.     Provide any and all correspondence with the CDC, EPA, FDA  or any branch of said agencies regarding fluoridation.

 

21.     Provide documents identifying the commercial source or sources from which your agency purchases or has purchased fluoridation materials since fluoridation began, including the names of companies providing said materials, their addresses, their telephone numbers, their e-mail addresses, and the names of contact persons who represent said companies. It is not necessary to send all documents if they are mostly repetitive. It is acceptable to send a representative sample.

 

22.     Provide documents discussing means of transportation of raw fluoride scrubber liquor by tanker or other means along with documents relating to safety, hazardous materials suits and protective methods, spill prevention, and cleanup.

 

23.     Provide documents identifying the protocol for adding fluoridation materials to drinking water, including but not limited to mixing and dispensing fluoridation materials into drinking water and keeping the fluoridation materials uniformly mixed over time and distance. Provide documents discussing any instances where fluoride content has not been consistent throughout the water system.

 

24.     Provide documents which would indicate whether there are any trace amounts of aluminum, arsenic, antimony, asbestos, cadmium, lead, mercury, radium, radon, polonium, barium, beryllium, thallium, or uranium included in said fluoridation materials and the quantities and concentrations of them.

 

25.     Provide documents identifying:

 

a.       the specific materials added to control acidity or pH levels of drinking water,

 

b.       the quantity of such materials added on a daily and monthly basis,

 

c.       where the acidity or pH level is monitored, and

 

d.       the target acidity or pH level to be obtained throughout the water system as a result of adding such materials,

 

e.       the actual acidity or pH level obtained throughout the water system and at different locations as a result of adding such materials,

 

f.        the means by which the acidity or pH level is monitored,

 

g.       how frequently the acidity or pH level is monitored.

 

26.     Provide documents identifying any mechanisms known to the agency by which materials added to lessen acidity of drinking water can be or are precipitated out or rendered less effective at reducing the acidity of the fluoridated water.

 

27.     There are scientific and scholarly reports which conclude that fluoride is harmful to fish or repels fish. See: http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-petition-to-auditor-general-chapter-6-evidence-of-environmental-harm.pdf. Provide documents which address this issue.

 

28.     Provide the written order or prescription in your possession or available to your agency from a medical or other professional which authorizes the Everett Water District to add fluoridation materials to Water District water, and/or which specifies the amount to be added, and/or which specifies the specific fluoridation chemical to be added.

 

29.     Provide the written order or prescription in your possession or available to the Everett Water District from a medical or other professional which grants written assurance to the Water District that the addition of fluoridation materials to the water is safe for the general population and for special populations such as babies and those with thyroid disease, kidney disease, and diabetes.

 

30.     Provide documents identifying agencies, laboratories, or other organizations from which you obtain on an ongoing basis or have obtained in the past or which you now can obtain information pertaining to the requests and questions posed in this document.

 

31.     In the July 2008 Request for Production of Documents, I asked:

 

          Provide copies of insurance invoices showing how much the agency paid for insurance for the last two years and provide copies of policies covering the Water District, showing policy limits, endorsements, and exclusions.

 

32.     Please update your response to this question.

 

33.     Identify the company in south Everett or North Edmonds to which Everett Water District runs a pipe which carries untreated water not containing added fluoride.

 

34.     Historical documents, including newspaper clippings and letters written and collected in connection with the fluoride debate when fluoridation was first proposed for Everett and each time it was voted on.

 

35.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use aluminum as a flocculant, the safety of using aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are and their comparative costs.

 

36.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use chloramines as a flocculant, the safety of using aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are and their comparative costs.

 

37.     Documents relating to whether Everett Utilities should use some disinfection method other than chlorine such as as ozonation or UV disinfection. 

 

38.     Documents relating to the safety of adding aluminum as a flocculant and what alternatives there are.

 

39.     A copy of the Notice of Potential Liability which I sent to Everett Utilities on or about July 15, 2008 and any or response written to it or any memorandum or other documents written in response to it. See the Notice at http://fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/notice-of-liability-to-everett-7-15-8.htm.

 

40.     In my July 15, 2008, Request for Documents I pointed out:

 

The silicofluroide used by Everett Water District contains lead and leaches lead from lead-brass pipe and fittings and from solder used to weld copper pipe. In light of this fact, provide documents identifying or discussing lead levels in the water system, including lead levels in the school buildings, including buildings built before 1986 when the maximum amount of lead in plumbing materials was lowered.

 

Provide documents identify homes and buildings in the area served by the Water District known to have lead plumbing or plumbing containing lead solder.

 

          Provide documents comparing lead levels in raw untreated water, lead levels in fluoridation materials, and lead levels the water in buildings built before and after 1986.

 

          Provide documents giving any explanation you may have for why lead levels in water in the pipes in buildings built or after 1986 is or would be higher than in raw water and fluoridation materials. See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/291566_lead08ww.html.

 

Your only answer to these questions was: “Not WFP Document”. This is not an adequate response to such an important question. If Seattle and Everett both are filled with old schools, old houses, old apartment buildings, old commercial buildings, and old factories – most of them containing lead-brass pipes and fittings and lead solder – then Everett is just as likely as Seattle to have lead levels in first draw water in the 1,600 ppb range which was uncovered in Seattle. A prudent person should have done additional studies in response to these questions.

 

There is a wealth of information on this subject as reviewed in this document: http://fluoride-class-action.com/hhs/comments-re-lead.

 

          Therefore, I am asking that you provide any and documents, letters, or memorandums written since July of 2008 on this topic.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law

 

In order to reduce copy costs and save paper and time, I request that the documents sought be provided as much as possible on a CD-ROM, instead of on paper.

 

You may call me at 425-771-1110, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., if necessary, to discuss any aspect of my request.

 

To make it easier for you to follow the links in this Request, I have posted it at: *

Sincerely,

 

 

James Robert Deal

Counselor at Law

 

One thought on “FOIA to Everett Water District 10-13-11

  1. Pingback: FLUORIDE CLASS ACTION » Occupy Seattle Flier 10-21-11

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by sweet Captcha