I have pers. According to…

I have pers. According to Riverstone, the surrounding wetlands and forests are “of conservation interest for which negative impacts stemming from implementation of the proposed development plan are possible”. Given the documented ecological diversity of this wetland and the risks identified by consultants hired by Fowler, how can the proposed quarry expansion be allowed to proceed? • Local residents are very concerned about silica and phosphorous dust produced as a result of Quarry operations and it appears as though little or no analysis has been done on the risks to local residents and wildlife of these toxic substances. The dust created by cutting, grinding, drilling or otherwise disturbing raw quarry materials can contain crystalline silica particles proven to causes lung disease and lung cancer. It takes only a very small amount of airborne silica dust to create a health hazard. Provincial Legislation requires that the “operation of a pit or quarry shall not cause any adverse effects or negative impacts on the health, safety, quality of life and well-being of citizens, properties and the natural environment”. And while the Ontario Ministry of Labour has strict guidelines in place for workers who come into contact with silica dust, there are no guidelines in place to protect local residents living near pits and quarries. The Aggregate Resources Act requires no air-quality monitoring, and dust control is only by water spraying and the use of dust suppressant. Fowler’s current strategy for mitigating the spread of toxic dust involves using residential water sprinklers on-site. In our opinion, this is a clearly an unacceptable approach for dealing with the spread of a highly toxic substance; while it may help minimize the spread of dust on-site, it does nothing to prevent the airborne transmission of silica dust to local residences or the highly sensitive wetlands immediately adjacent to the proposed new quarry.