Two weeks ago, a letter drafted by the command action group within EWAG was sent to Tom Cutbush, Managing Director of WBB Minerals, and copied to Gary Stringer and our local MP's and councillors. No reply has yet been forthcoming.
Here is a transcript of the letter:
QUESTIONS FROM THE EAST WINCH ACTION GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF EAST WINCH "Dear Mr Cutbush,
I am writing on behalf of the East Winch Action Group (EWAG) and seeking clarification on recent correspondence your company have either submitted or been quoted upon in both local newspapers and the Parish magazine (Voice of the Villagers). As you are aware we are a resident’s action group representing in excess of 200 signatories from the village of East Winch and are directly apposed to most of your proposed extraction sites within the village boundaries. In particular MIN 40 (land to the east of Grandcourt Farm, Middleton).
Of extreme concern to us are some of the risks associated with the extraction of silica sand and predominantly the onset of silicosis or respiratory related cancers such as mesothelioma. We are aware of local people having worked in or living close to the Leziate sites over the last decades dieing prematurely from respiratory related diseases.
We are a small rural community and enjoy a rightful peaceful and healthy life away from the smog ridden industrial centres. We have a small school and a church which will be less than 50m from the edge of your proposed MIN 40 site and a large conurbation of houses with many children and elderly residents which potentially can be as little as 10m from the boundary of and open quarry.
Your company has already or is in the process of reducing vast swathes of open country side around East Winch to polluted sand pits which could take generations to restore to its original state (Which incidentally in most cases does not appear to be part of your planning). Aerial photography of the area presents the most accurate representation of what is happening to our area. Unless unchecked all of the countryside around East Winch will be excavated for sand and the village will be an island. Currently the villagers enjoy limited country walks enjoying the country its flora and wildlife, the excavation of sand at MIN 40 would preclude this right and most of the flora and wildlife could vanish forever.
Similar considerations and detrimental effects also apply to local villagers in respect of other proposed sites discussed with Norfolk County Council, as part of the recent consultation process, including MIN 39, amongst others.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Committee members of EWAG have been appointed to represent and voice the concerns of local villagers in respect of your proposed mining operations.
Therefore can you please can you directly answer the following questions:
1. There are synthetic alternatives available to silica sand and a lot of other countries/companies are recognising their effects on health are now using these. Have you considered the benefits of using synthetic alternatives? If not why not?
2. There is much publicised correspondence concerning the effects of Silicosis produced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and in particular PM10 particles. When sand is initially excavated can you state categorically that no particles the size of PM 10 or smaller are produced. Irrespective of the quantity or control measures put in place? YES or NO?
3. Why are you proposing to put a silica sand excavation site (MIN 40) so close the village boundaries of East Winch in direct conflict with human habitation? Will you withdraw your submission of the MIN 40 site from your proposals?
4. When excavating silica sand in its raw form at the site face do you provide members of your company with personal protective equipment? If yes, what type is it and what is it to protect against? Do you issue face masks or other protective devices to prevent the inhalation of dust?
5. Why do your employees use water to dampen the ground when excavating silica sand in its raw form from an open cast mine? Is this to control dust? As your representatives have quoted at recent council meetings sand particles are too large to be breathed in and in windy conditions they will fall within 50m of being picked up into the air!
6. Has any member of your company ever been sick with any form of respiratory disease which could be associated with the mining of silica sand whether proven or not? If yes can you provide statistics? Obviously we are not asking you to divulge names and break medical in confidence rules. Statistics are an open source deliverable and can be issued.
7. Health and Safety. Has your company (WBB Minerals) ever been in breach of any Health and Safety Executive Laws or guidelines irrespective of how small? Has your company (WBB Minerals) ever been made the subject of a Health and Safety Enforcement notice irrespective of type or perceived importance can you provide full details? If the answer is yes can you provide dates of the notice were issued and the date of compliance.
8. A recent survey with local estate agents has revealed that the scale of excavation you are proposing around East Winch and in particular MIN 40 will have a direct effect on house values within the village. If this is proven beyond doubt to be the case what compensation packages will you put in place to reimburse the households for financial loss due to your company’s activities?
9. How have you worked with the communities in the past to ensure that your processes do not interfere with community life including excessive noise and light pollution? What assurances can you give to ensure there will be no noise pollution from your excavation activities irrespective of what is deemed to be acceptable standards?
10. Do you work with or have regular contact with the East Winch Parish Council or have you had direct contact or meetings with the East Winch Parish Council at any time within the last 5 years?
11. We have seen mineral extraction proposals for MIN40, etc. Can you confirm these will be the last excavation proposals within East Winch, Gayton, Middleton, Bawsey, Leziate and Grimston. YES or NO? If Yes, where are these areas and what are your future plans?
12. It is noted that part of your restoration plan at Grand Court Farm Middleton is to create another lake. Will the water be polluted with any chemicals as a result of the excavation process? If YES. What?
13. Can the newly created lake(s) support all forms of life associated with inland bodies of water?
14. Can you give absolute assurances that the current biodiversity status of MIN40 which includes all wildlife and topography will not be affected in any way?
15. Will any of your activities result in irreversible loss of wildlife habitat or biodiversity?
16. What is your position as regarding Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) being “a known human carcinogen” [Source: US Toxicology Report on Carcinogens, 7th edition] and that people living near quarries are “potentially exposed to Respirable Crystalline Silica?
17. We understand that Dave Robson from Environmental Health has been to visit your company during June 2008. Can you give assurances that you will cooperate with him fully in order to allow him to assess the level of dust emissions from your open cast sites, processing centres and the local haul routes (including road and rail)?
Whilst this list of questions is not exhaustive at this stage we are hoping that by you answering the questions as directly and honestly as possible we will be in a better position to evaluate the EWAG’s position and may help allay some of the wider communities’ fears. We are hoping that by opening direct dialog with you as a company we can achieve some sensible outcomes. However, a point to note the MIN 40 site is non negotiable at any cost as far as EWAG are concerned nor is any area of your activities which may have a direct effect on health or wellbeing of the village. We look forward to hearing from you."
