Resident urges Charlton health board to investigate quarry blasting after heavy dust clouds

Eric Berguson, a Charlton resident, told the Town of Charlton Board of Health on May 5 that a recent blast at the nearby quarry left “a thick coating” of dust on houses and cars and that the plume was so heavy “you couldn't see into the neighbor's house.” Berguson said he brought photographs and videos showing daily dust deposition and asked the board to look into possible environmental and health effects.

"One of the blasts created a cloud of smoke over the neighborhood… it was pretty much so thick that you couldn't see," Berguson said, describing photographs he provided to the board. He said he asked the quarry operator and was told the dust was safe, but that the blasting company later told him it did not have an air‑quality analysis and that "silica is everywhere." Berguson raised silica and other particulate concerns and said, "It's a carcinogen. It's bad stuff. You don't want to breathe it in. Long exposure is bad, short exposure is bad."

Board members and staff responded that the fire marshal handles blasting permits and that individual blast events are typically managed through permit and complaint processes, but they acknowledged cumulative, long‑term effects are harder to track. The board observed that quarry operations — crushing, drilling and truck traffic — also produce dust and that water wagons or mats can reduce but not eliminate plumes.

Berguson also raised groundwater concerns after describing wet ledges and greenish ponds near the quarry face. He reported anecdotal reports of radon spikes in private well or home monitoring following blasts and recounted neighbors who temporarily left their homes because blasts aggravated medical conditions, including a veteran with PTSD and a resident with Alzheimer's.

The meeting produced no formal enforcement action. Board members said the issue likely requires coordination with other entities — including the fire marshal’s office and state regulators — and that they would collect more information and revisit the matter when Health Director Jim returns from vacation. The board scheduled follow‑up discussion for its next meeting on June 2. "I didn't expect answers tonight," one board member said, "I just wanted to put a face to the letter and not just dump a letter and walk away."

For now the Board of Health recorded the complaint, agreed to seek additional data (including any available seismograph or blast monitoring records and any environmental analyses) and signaled it would pursue further review rather than taking immediate regulatory action at this meeting.